35mm battle to be HD

Scotbobo2 · Post by **Scotbobo2** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:58 pm

Just watched a Music video Mtv type behind the scenes show.I was stunned at the incredible amount of 35mm that was used and abused,40 to 100 thousand dollars for a stupid no name music video.The camera operators went on about how kodaks new vision2 stocks are so slick they look like 24p hd video. Wow, so is 35mm goals to look like 24p?
other comments" You soon won't be able to tell film originated material"
,"We have virtually eliminated the artifacts that shooting on film causes,grain,lack of gloss..etc"
I started out working only in 35mm,and only shot that for 5 years or so,I was always told never shoot below super 16. Now that I discovered super 8(about a year ago) ,I am starting to hate 35mm.I wish 35mm looked like film .What is wrong with some grain? What is wrong with contrast? OnThe movie "8 mile"They fought to get a gritty,realism out of the 35mm stock ,maybe they should have used 16mm or dare I say Super 8?
* On a NY film campus ,they gave out magazines on how to be a working cameman,all the cameras in the book were video cameras,some already outdated videocameras!!! There were two little lines on the last page about pro8mm(forget about k-40 getting a mention ).You had to looked hard to see it,but the video cameras pictures were huge and in color! Minidv !

Post by **Nigel** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:25 pm

I think it is habeen a Film vs. HD marketing battle for some time now. Panasonic and Sony send out a fleet of fast talking sales-men and make the "Hard Sell" to rental houses. Those rental houses then need to push and make the "Hard Sell" to DP's in order to pay off the gear they bought.

As for who these cats are that think that 35mm is to slick...Then they aren't doing camera tests and are only buyng the V2 stocks.

Good Luck

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:36 pm

"What's good sells itself and doesn't need advertising"

- Obijawan saying.

People who don't know and are completely outside such systems, don't understand that there is no HD "revolution" going on at a professional level, even at the lowest teer music video level. Here in Canada, 35mm music videos for no-name bands paid for by a governement funding agency is business as usual -- just like you see in that mtv clip. HD is being wholesale rejected unless people are hard sold on it and don't know any better. The problem is, except for braindead Michael Bay/McG Juniors shooting too many tiresome music videos, it's all a hard sell con job and those clowns at Sony better get their shit together and concentrate on their consumer-level HD camcorders or they're going to end up with another Betamax with this Blue Ray bullshit.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:00 pm

Santo wrote: People who don't know and are completely outside such systems, don't understand that there is no HD "revolution" going on at a professional level, even at the lowest teer music video level.

Wishful thinking. Just tell that to any lab that has seen their 16mm processing volume drop drastically or any rental house that now rents mostly HD and 24P packages while their ARRIs sit collecting dust. There is a huge HD and digital revolution going on all around us. Film is dying. Digital is picking up new converts every single day of the week and these are all "pros" making the switchover. I know of over two dozen music video production companies in Houston, Dallas and Nashville that say they'll never shoot film again under any circumstance because of the flexibility that shooting digital offers them in being competitive, which is what it's all about. They would LIKE to shoot film but the market is dictating what they do.

I would say that while the number of people shooting 35mm that have made the switch to HD are not as great, there are a ton of people that have made the switch from S16 to HD or 24P and they do count as part of the equation. Unless you are implying that only people that shoot 35mm are "pros".

Roger

Post by **woods01** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:02 am

For marginal productions the economics of going to HD is an excellent
decision. Especially when there is little chance of the project ever seeing
a 35mm print. But almost every film with some money behind it is still
shooting 35mm. I see 16mm becoming very dead in a few years with only
well financed productions using it because of the gritty look it can achieve.
And with a following with avante garde style filmmakers.

I am often surprised at how 35mm is still churned out on music videos for
less than A-list talent. I've been on a few sets where the pay was crap
and we wondered how much more we would be getting if they weren't
shooting on 35mm and other luxuries for the sake of 'art'.

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:28 am

Yes, woods01, it is very surprising to see what's really the case when the veil of the HD myth is pulled away and we see how many people continue to reject it -- even when they are in dire budget restraints and are just shooting for TV anyways and might be freed up a bit. Though perhaps things are different elsewhere, like in the Texas music video scene.

No, Roger, I am not suggesting that the only professional format is 35mm. I do, however, agree with Nigel that it may be the "last man standing" over super 16 when the smoke clears. And, believe it or not, as incredible and unlikely as it may seem, I also believe super 8 will be standing side by side 35mm as the alternative for more of a film texture look supliment and NOT 16mm/super 16mm. The advent of the new V2 film stocks in super 8 assures this. Super 8 use increases as 16mm declines as we write this, right?

Post by **scottbobo2** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:41 am

I totally agree with Roger,There is definately a HD revolution going on .It may not be a loud war but a revolution.There is a whole new generation that doesnt want to see anything but slick and grain free(studio executive view).The target market in the U.S. is still 12-25year olds,many have only seen slick productions. A friend (22 years old) recently asked me why "Raging Bull" looked so bad,she was accustom to MTV looking movies.In many ways film is trying to look like HD (when will we get vision 3 stock ?) there have been big meetings(according to the"Hollywood Reporter") where all the major studios are trying to put a label on what is industry standard HD and HDprojection . ,so the average person with an HD camera cannot be considered "professional "
The studios are not stupid they are already in partnership with the big digital companies,HD is here to stay and for now they want 35mm to look like it ,not different from it. The article spoke of how the HD standard must be somthing that the average person could never afford,Like 35mm was always the standard the independent wanted to achieve , they are trying for a similair standard in HD that the average person can not afford

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:05 am

scottbobo2 wrote: I totally agree with Roger,There is definately a HD revolution going on .It may not be a loud war but a revolution.

No, it is very loud. That's why we hear about it. It is complete hype and bullshit and driven by the megacorp Japanese elctronics manufacturers who own a share of a Hollywood studio or two trying to aritificially engineer a "revolution" which is a myth. Cartoon style directors lke Rodriguez take the big paycheque and are spokesmen for anybody who will pay to make their films. It's like he just simply doesn't get it, or, more likely, has never seen THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY on 70mm. If he ever did and was honest with himself, he'd confess and beg for forgiveness. Leone and Chuck Jones is where that minor league talent stole all his shit from -- you'd think he'd know better but he doesn't. Which is why he'll never produce a truly great classic film anybody will ever remember in the long term.

scottbobo2 wrote: There is a whole new generation that doesnt want to see anything but slick and grain free(studio executive view).The target market in the U.S. is still 12-25year olds,many have only seen slick productions. A friend (22 years old) recently asked me why "Raging Bull" looked so bad,she was accustom to MTV looking movies.In many ways film is trying to look like HD (when will we get vision 3 stock ?) there have been big meetings(according to the"Hollywood Reporter") where all the major studios are trying to put a label on what is industry standard HD and HDprojection . ,so the average person with an HD camera cannot be considered "professional "
The studios are not stupid they are already in partnership with the big digital companies,HD is here to stay and for now they want 35mm to look like it ,not different from it. The article spoke of how the HD standard must be somthing that the average person could never afford,Like 35mm was always the standard the independent wanted to achieve , they are trying for a similair standard in HD that the average person can not afford

Sony bought a studio. Other major electronics manufacturers are "silent partners" in a couple of places. The whole HD thing is bullshit hype created by the Japanese electronics manufacturing complex who wants to sell HD tvs and camcorders and, if as a sideline to the main gravy train, replace film with their sub-par (by a gigantic margin) HD production systems and film projection systems.

btw, quality 35mm has always appeared grain free on sd tv, except when great filmmakers wanted a more film quality look on purpose.

With the "HD revolution" one can draw a parallel to the US war in Iraq to "combat terrorists and WMD". What is it REALLY about? At least in that case -- outside of the US apparently??? -- nobody with a brain is fooled.

Post by **Nigel** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:22 am

Look at the rental rates for a CineAlta and do the numbers...

You will see how they shake out. Film(S16) will come in about equal to or if not slightly less than shooting your project on HD.

Why is it that the Rental houses I know and use are still having people line up for the upper end film packages. The reason some of the Arri's are sitting on the shelf is because they got sold an electronic device and need to turn it over for their ROI. It is salesmen.

Good Luck

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:31 am

Santo wrote:It is complete hype and bullshit and driven by the megacorp Japanese elctronics manufacturers who own a share of a Hollywood studio or two trying to aritificially engineer a "revolution" which is a myth.

Respectfully, the only "myth" is that film is going to gain ground against digital and come out on top, economically. You are quite correct that Sony and others with a vested interest are pushing digital with all the hype they can muster. No one is arguing with that obvious fact. The issue is whether the hype will win the battle and it will. You are basing your argument on personal preference regarding the superiority of film over digital when the war will be won not because digital is better or that it is even as good as film. The war will be won by digital because it is simply "good enough" for the common man, even if it is not good enough for Santo.

Roger

Post by **scottbobo2** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:38 am

I totally agree that film is way better, super 16 over HD in my opinion,but at NYU and at least 3 top film schools in the U.S, digital is being pushed to the students.35mm is still the top of the mountain but why are they pushing digital in the schools? At kodak ,New york,I was buying super 8 last week and people were purchasing super 8 left and right but one guy said they are still telling us to shoot digital not 8mm.
I don't like digital at all but as Santo said big money is behind digital and big money usually has the last word,To much money is behind digital so it will be the look of the future. * refering to the Iraq example that was used,it may or may not have been hype but there was still a war,like it or not. Ask the average kid what super 8 is.. then ask him what minidv is.Which do you think he will know? Does nt matter if HD is hype it is still what will be used(money talks)

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:57 am

Nigel wrote: Why is it that the Rental houses I know and use are still having people line up for the upper end film packages.

My guess is that people are "lining up" because the rental houses don't have as many upper end film packages as they used to since digital has made keeping a vast inventory of film equipment a liability. At least that's the reason I get from the rental places in Houston. One of them, Otto Nemitz, shut down their rental house in Houston for this very reason a year or so ago. Granted, Houston isn't a "media town" but there was an awful lot of 16mm and 35mm film that used to be shot here. Now these people are shooting HD. I know producers in Dallas and Nashville that tell me the same thing.

To be fair, I suppose one could make a case about the current domination of the market by either film or digital, depending on what one's own experiences are. But I think we all know that, in the end, where the big money goes for R&D and marketing is where the winner's circle will be drawn. Does anyone here really think that film is going to be the last man standing in that circle? I just don't see it. I don't like it but I just don't see it. My own preference for film doesn't make me blind to the obvious proliferation of digital in what used to be an all-film industry.

Roger

Post by **Nigel** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:58 am

A close friend who is getting his MFA from AFI in Directing is shooting his thesis this Spring. He is shooting 35 as is the vast majority of the films coming out of there. Why?? Because the people in the conservatory are there to move into an idustry and hone their skills to industry standards. Everyone in the Cinematography focus is drooling for film because they know it is the bench mark.

I agree with Santo. If you are a serious player HD doesn't enter your head unless for a stylistic reason.

Good Luck

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:00 am

Nigel wrote:A close friend who is getting his MFA from AFI in Directing is shooting his thesis this Spring. He is shooting 35 as is the vast majority of the films coming out of there. Why??

Because he is getting his MFA from AFI, that's why!

Roger

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:08 am

What happened to Mac is what is happening to film. Macintosh's market share dwindled but their credibility and desireablility actually increased (and so have their profits)!

There is an explosion in media production that is fueling HD and mini-dv even though more 35mm was shot than the year before. The media pie is getting bigger.

Real production companies understand what film is and will keep it in their repetoire if for no other reason than to say they do it and know how to do it, even if they shoot Hd 99% of the time.

Reality is anyone who eschews film and will never use it again sounds just as pompous as someone who says video will disappear. One day film may only need 1% of the professional market to survive as long as the vidiots don't completely fall for corporate hype that trys to place film in the horse and buggy category.

The Hype that Nigel speaks of has to do with rental houses competing with the film labs and film transfer facilities for lower budgeted productions. The higher budgeted productions still tend to shoot film but lower budgeted productions are proliferating.