LethalWolfe said:
No offense but I'm calling BS on this one. This is why there is still a stigma surrounding video. It goes back to what I said in a previous post about people attaching a prestigious<sp?> and artistic air to film thus infusing it w/a perceived superiority. Video is trying to emulate film not because film is better, per se, but because people associate the visual qualities present in film w/the movie going experience. This includes film grain, dirty/beat-up prints, and the jitter & weave of the on screen image caused by the projector. That is one thing that I'm still getting used to w/digital projection is the fact that the on screen image doesn't move. I'm used to the image always slightly dancing around on the screen. That imperfection is part of watching a movie on the big screen. Is digital projection worse because it doesn't jitter? No. But is sure is different.
The biggest hurdle digital filmmaking has to over come is being different, not being inferior. It's less of a battle over quality as it is over what people are used to. If you read interviews w/DP's that are steadfast against HD their argument usually boils down to, "I like film. I know film inside and out. I don't want to start from square one learning a new system." But they never say that. They keep trying to make an objective argument about a subjective preference. People panned digital editing when it first started making the rounds but look at it today.
When people think "film" they think "Hollywood" when people think "video" they think "home movies."
If you grab a wedding videographer and have him shoot a movie on an XL-1 or a BetaSP camera w/stock lenses it will look nothing like a movie because it was not shot in a cinematic style. If you take that same camera and put it in the hands of a good DP you will have a drastically looking different looking picture. I'm not a big fan of the man nor the movie but there is nothing, IMO, that is visually lacking w/"Once Upon a Time in Mexico" and it was all shot on HD. Relatively new cameras (starting at the prosumer level) are changing the way they process light. Instead of the "normal" video processing way the cameras are handling light more like film cameras (24fps, different gamma, less/no added edge sharpening, etc.,). This just means that there will be less tweaking needed in post to achieve the "film look". And as far as "...but film's traditional exposure process brings out elements and emotion rarely captured in video unless edited in or processed to do so." goes no matter what you shoot (film or video) it will get processed to achive the look you are going after. When you are shooting your main concerns are focus, framing, and exposure. 90% of getting the "look" you want happens in post. "Raw," unmanipulated dalies look way, way different than the final image you see in the movie. Many times footage is intentionally<sp?> under or over exposed during shooting so that after post processing the film product will have the desired look.
Finally, film is not infinitely flexible. It has it's limits just like any other format.
With todays toys the difference between film and "film-quality" HD are insignificant 9/10. HD, like different film stocks, just provides another "look" filmmakers can choose from. What's better, B&W or color? Well, it depends on the story you are telling. Same thing w/HD. Which is better? It depends on what the needs of your story are.
/rant
Lethal
Your first comment on this subject is "BS"? Don't be surprised if you don't make too many in life Lethal.
I respect your comment and you've brought many issues to light. Yes, there are stigmas standard film format doesn't overcome such as jitter through projectors, 24fps (which makes for well percieved motion blur, but this is subjective), grain when that's not what's needed, or wanted, etc.
I absolutely agree with how video can be in some cases better. How video has evolved to an excellent format. How it will only get better and get pushed to the limits, and how quite a few big budget movies have already shot in that format.
But to say film is dead, gone, an old format that is no longer good and that it's essentially holding us back due to prestigious & artistic aire that people associate with it is quite wrong. Well, lets just say, it's not "entirely" correct.
I wonder if your have the same standpoint on Vinyl records and CD's. That being said, CD's were developed, beyond the subject of portablity, to offer a pristine sound that, at the time, was to have unrivaled clarity.
If any of you have listened to vinyl, you'll understand this debate. Simply that records, have a low amount of noise in the background. Hissing, crackling, etc. So followers of innovation subscribed to the CD format to no end and put down vinyl as much as possible, wanting the vinyl standard to be rid of forever because of it's "inferiority".
Then, something funny happened, people kept listening to CD's and Vinyl and noticed something, while CD's had unrivaled clarity, it also lacked something. Something about this digital format was losing information. Could it be that it was 16 bit digital (which is poor at best)? Well the answer is yes. There is something that got lost in translation of very standard CD format since the early 80's till now. And that is to say, 16bit CD's lost the richness of trumpets, vibrant depth of a bass, awesome reverberation of a trilling opera singer, and the edgy shreak of the rockstar.
CD was right to fail from the beginning. Yes it's convienient, yes it's been the defacto standard for selling, copying, and transporting music for 20 years. But it's also a poor standard. DVD Audio and SACD address these issues with 96bit 5.1 quality (which is quite amazing), but digital is not infinite. By virtue digital is finite. There must be clear, defined bordered. Analog has a very different take on that. Analog is not infinite, but offers a much much much wider range of sound than that of it's younger sibling, the CD. Again, DVD-Audiovand SACD have now come much closer to vinyl.
Now, how does this address this conversation? First, I know video and film are not easy nor completely practical to associate with CD's and Vinyl. But there are some simliarities in the arguments.
Like you pointed out, 9/10 times, the diff. between film and film quality HD is insignifcant. But "insignificant" suggests that film still has that edge 9/10 times. And beyond that, that leave 1/10 times that is the diff between the two are "significant".
There lies my analagous argument of CD-vs Vinyl.
Feel free to flame away.
