Hello everyone.
I am an aspiring indy-filmmaker, and high school senior.

I have recently purchased a Canon XL2 (I was salivating over the XLH1, but lo… 10,000 dollars is just too much for a camera body kit), which is the only consumer SD camcorder in the world that boasts of 24p with a 2:3:3:2 cadence, and a native 16:9 CCD. I will post some images taken at full resolution if I get the chance.

Anywho, I just saw the trailer for Michael Mann’s Miami Vice, which, like Collateral, was shot digitally with a Sony F9000*. Supposedly, the new XLH1 rivals the aforementioned camera in terms of overall quality, as per some highly objective sources. The new camera delivers a deinterlaced 1080p images, with a 24fps frame mode, that seamlessly delivers film-like motion. Panasonic is scheduled to release their next-gen HD camcorder, which shoots a true progressive scan image at both 720 and 1080p, and a 24fps option. This camera shoots on DVCPRO, as well as a new, tapeless, “P-2” format.

The point in all this is that we have finally come to the turning point where every day ‘pro’sumers will have the technological feasibility to produce visually cinematic results.
Of course, the Iliad written on a stone tablet is still the Iliad, and likewise great movies will continue to stand apart because of their story’s heart, nay look.

I just wanted to ask you guys to reiterate any experience that you have had watching video blown up for film. Likes, dislikes, distractions, opinions?

For reference, such films include:
28 Days Later (shot with my xl2, actually)
The aforementioned Collateral, Miami Vice, etc
Popular documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11, Super Size Me, etc…
The list goes on indefinitely.

*for naggers… collateral was actually a compendium of media, with video shot on two different cameras, and some 35mm interspersed. Regardless, video comparable to the next-gen HDV camcorders on the market today was shown on a big screen AND no one had a serious problem with it.

I have no idea what you just said, but it was interesting as hell!
I now know more about filming then I did 5 minutes ago.
Thanks!

No real issues with it.

Most of the problems with lower budget/indy films is not the media. But the actual filming and editing.
Shaky shots (Blair Witch notwithstading), out of focus, bad lighting etc. When rerecording your audio make sure you get a real foley artist or at least someone who really wants to be one.

Finally.. if you are filming something that you are not an absolute expert on.. Find someone who is. Little "stupid" mistakes drive tons of us nuts.
Examples.. you're shooting a scene in a cafe/resturant.. your waitresses had better not be wearing high heels, Tires don't squeel on dirt roads, etc etc.
Oh.. and finally.. watch star wars episodes I II III.. after doing so you will know how NOT to write dialoge.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Oh.. and finally.. watch star wars episodes I II III.. after doing so you will know how NOT to write dialoge.

And I thought I was the only one...................................

Shouldn't it be "indie" films?
Or are you planning to shoot the famous 500 mile car race in Indianapolis?

Ah, yeah... indie. Actualy, I think I have seen it spelled both ways.

Most of the problems with lower budget/indy films is not the media.
Oh, I absolutely agree…

However, I was asking people’s thoughts on digital cinema in general. It seems to be a big problem with film snobs and the like, who see it as a front to their rather exclusive industry… but, as you said, it is fundamentally the story and the level of professionalism that sell any production.

Here is some more food for thought, Boondawg.

To anyone who actually knows film, fyi: I am only a student, so if I give any erroneous information, please feel free to correct me.

Persistence of vision enables motion picture film to simulate motion at no less than 16 frames per second. Anything below this and the human eye can actually pick up on the individual frames. With that said, the film standard is 24fps. For each frame, there must be one ‘flicker’ (the physical process by which the shutter obscures the ‘pull-up’ of the next frame on the reel). To make this process less noticeable, film projectors include redundant flickers.
So, generally, motion picture projectors run at 48 Hz. This gives an acceptable simulation of motion, but it is by no means perfect.

In fact, video offers a much smoother representation of motion than film, and we have only been conditioned into associating the look of video with cheapness by decades of watching motion picture film at 24fps (!).

Back when television was in its formative stages, video was broadcast in a progressive-scan format (meaning that the entire image was resolved from top to bottom). Televisions at the time had very low refresh rates, and the images would be painful on the eyes to watch.

Interlacing was developed to resolve this. Interlacing is the process by which where each frame is split into horizontal odd and even fields, which are displayed on screen sequentially. Two fields do NOT compromise a single frame however. Video cameras were likewise built to record images interlaced in the first place.

Then came the indy videographer… and lo, camcorders were built that attempted to revert to their primal film roots. Through a complex pull-down process, 24p (that is, 24 frames per second recorded progressively, or NON-interlaced) can be effectively stuffed onto a mini dv tape designed to record 60i video at 29.97 fps.

What does all this mean? In the next decade, I believe that we will see the independent market swell with proficiency, as it is not only exponentially cheaper to produce such films, but, truly, at the very same quality that we have come to associate with immense budget productions. What would once cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars can be accomplished now under 10k.

I want to post some of my images... how do I have them hosted?

[This message has been edited by Jeffery (edited 12-22-2005).]

I say video. Film is like adio tapes they lack the crispness. But digital lacks some of the "warmth". To hell with the industry and its snobs. I mean just look at the dribble they force feed to the masses. Don't know if that helps any but good luck movie guy.

I know a guy that bought some old school equipment for cheap. The professional stuff they used in the 1980's. He made a pretty decent indy film with it. I haven't heard from him since. It was about four years ago.

speak of the devil... apple.com just put up the trailer for miamivice. No HD rez one yet, but I hope they include one in the near future. I mostly grew up in miami, and the building that the helicopter flys by in the begining was built by my father, along with most of the big buildings downtown. I have a friend who is a PA of sorts for Farrel in this project, so it garners some interest from me... allthough I must admit that the teaser is hardly of my taste:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/miamivice/large.html

I HATE the digital revolution... I’m an aspiring photographer (different type of camera, but same dilemma) and I have over 3k invested in a dark room that now is obsolete! What’s the point? Film still has greater resolution (at least in SLR compared to DSLR) and here’s the clincher.... with digital your always changing formats, so your priceless memories and or art is lost once the change is made... but with film it will always be there. I can take a pic today with digital and put it on my hard drive... in 10 years I probably wont have that pic any longer. But I can go into my grandfather’s old chest and find negatives of him from WWI.... and print them in my dark room and boom I still have a pic of my grandfather.

My biggest beef with digital is that... well I sum it up in this antidote... If you see a picture of a woman in a field, it looses something when you find out that the woman was never in the field, that infact the field never existed.

Poignant observation with your last sentence... the ability to manipulate a photograph with the ease we posses today is a bit frightening. Or are you talking of the fact that, when it comes down to it, a digital image is fundamentally just a bunch of pixles?

Either way, does this take away from the true visionaries? I digress... I think it not only makes their job much easier, but it frees them up not only financially, but, most importantly, creatively as well.

Lo, I have a deep reservoir of respect for film, but I also seek to take infinite advantage of the opportunities offered to me today. As a professional, I think you would have to be crazy not to do so yourself.

The medium is irrelevant to the soul of the work, methinks.

Interesting stuff.

[This message has been edited by Jeffery (edited 12-22-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Oh.. and finally.. watch star wars episodes I II III.. after doing so you will know how NOT to write dialoge.

There are films were written worse then episodes I II III... what about The Man, or A Sound of Thunder, or The White Chicks, or Hide and Seek, or Boogeyman, or Dark Water, or Slam Dunk Ernest, or Time Line, or The Core, or The Butterfly Effect (which I loved), or Prozac Nation.... seriously the list continues.

And the only reason most people think I II and III were bad is because we all have this idea of how great the original star wars was and we wanted each of them to live up to that... which is I’m possible, it’s kind of like when you were a kid and your grandma seemed so large then when you grew up you found out how small she was, its all about perception.... because you do realize that the original star wars is badly written right? Its just your common sci fi action film (all be it the first block buster one). If you go in remembering it’s just a movie... and that George Lucas is just a man... then you will enjoy the 3 of them much much more.... I will give that Jar Jar is the most annoying character ever created.

Okay… I think I will agree with you, with the proviso that I l think the true visionaries and photographic minds can only benefit themselves digitally. But film will be/is a lost art, and that is something to mourn.

Thank you for your comments. : )

quote Originally posted by Jeffery: Okay… I think I will agree with you, with the proviso that I l think the true visionaries and photographic minds can only benefit themselves digitally. But film will be/is a lost art, and that is something to mourn. Thank you for your comments. : )

Its more then something to mourn... its like finding out one day that the moon will never shine again. Its a devastating blow.

Oh no, it will shine... in 1080p. : )

Sorry, misunderstood your inital query.

I see more and more going to the digital format. Simple reason $$.
Editing can be done in a fraction of the time. Reshoots?? why, you can alter the lightsource, noise etc etc.
Travel to exotic locals?? Why.. green screen your "talent" and send the second unit out to get stock footage and build the environment.

What I do hope this brings back is .. dare I say it.. Acting.. with real actors. People who can make you believe they are that person.

You can throw in all the pretty images and creative lighting you want.. but if you're just showing Jack Black act like Jack Black the teacher, film maker, or Tom Cruise acting like Tom Cruise the race driver, Pilot, hitman... you get the point.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Sorry, misunderstood your inital query. I see more and more going to the digital format. Simple reason $$. Editing can be done in a fraction of the time. Reshoots?? why, you can alter the lightsource, noise etc etc. Travel to exotic locals?? Why.. green screen your "talent" and send the second unit out to get stock footage and build the environment.

Your never going to see the end of on location shoots in photography... one you cant duplicate the aura that surrounds an exotic beach at sunset.... and 2 the models wont have it... LOL could you imagine trying to tell a super model that she doesn’t get to go to the Caribbean for her shoot?

There’s never a reason for a re-shoot... if you’re a good photographer. I take one photo... and that’s all I need because in that one photo I’ve done my job as a photographer well.

And finally back grounds even green screen ones never look right...you can always tell when they have been done... at least I can.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: I HATE the digital revolution... I’m an aspiring photographer (different type of camera, but same dilemma) and I have over 3k invested in a dark room that now is obsolete!

So Dezie, where do you keep your horse? Oh wait, that's right... you sold it to the glue factory and bought a car.

The times are changing...

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Your'e full of BS. Even the best photographers bracket their shots.

Bracketing is not the same as a reshoot!
Bracketing is taking 3 to 6 shots of the same shot using differing aperture settings, speed settings, and lighting effects... when I refer to one photo, I’m referring to one of these brackets.

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 12-22-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: So Dezie, where do you keep your horse? Oh wait, that's right... you sold it to the glue factory and bought a car. The times are changing...

WTF does that mean? I never had a horse... and even if this is supposed to be a metaphor... It’s lost on me.

What’s the horse supposed to be? The camera? The Darkroom? Or a Fiero? And what is the glue factory supposed to be? A school? A dark room? A Fiero or a camera? And I bought a car? That one just makes no sense... again if I was operating on 3 brain cells... It might make more sense to me... but alas I use several million more then that.

Even in this time of brotherly love (Christmas) you cant abstain from insults... I sure hope someone brings you a lump of coal.

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 12-22-2005).]

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Bracketing is not the same as a reshoot!

Who said it was?

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Bracketing is taking 3 to 6 shots of the same shot using differing aperture settings, speed settings, and lighting effects...

I know what "bracketing" is.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: ... when I refer to one shot, I’m referring to one of these brackets.

Sure...

quote Originally posted by dezie36: I take one photo... and that’s all I need because in that one photo I’ve done my job as a photographer well.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: You're so full of yourself it's difficult to abstain from commenting.

Well try some self-control for once in your life.
I believe my self to be a good photographer... so what’s wrong with that? Those who have seen my work love it... a little self-confidence goes a long way... and a lot will take you even farther!

Don’t hate me because I love my self, and my talents... hate me because your jealous of them...LOL

I thought the original question was about film making?

Photography is diff because you have to capture that one precise instance in time. Ya maybe you can doctor it up in photoshop.. but you'll always know.

Filming is a lot different..

As for supermodels and actors.. they should be reassigned to the class they came from.. one above clapping monkeys..

quote Originally posted by Uaana: I thought the original question was about film making? Photography is diff because you have to capture that one precise instance in time. Ya maybe you can doctor it up in photoshop.. but you'll always know. Filming is a lot different.. As for supermodels and actors.. they should be reassigned to the class they came from.. one above clapping monkeys..

You’re absolutely right that the original question was about films not photography... but the basic principles of image capturing are the same... I have friends who are into film and they go on and on about the wonders of digital... but not one photographer I know is welcoming it, in fact I just started talking to my new photography teacher, and he’s pissed as hell… he’s loosing so much work (he’s a wedding photographer) to people who think that now that they have a digital camera they can take their own photos.

I just thought I would interject with a bit from the other side of the other camera being affected by the digital revaluation.

This is pretty funny. I don't want to take sides, but both of you have me laughing in my chair.

Enough though... tis' christmas.

EDIT: Hey, I personaly know many a photographer... even some well into their years... who embrace the digital camera.

Oh, and I have no problem with the two subjects (film and photography) mixing together here. As far as I see it, it is all story telling.

[This message has been edited by Jeffery (edited 12-22-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Jeffery: EDIT: Hey, I personaly know many a photographer... even some well into their years... who embrace the digital camera.

You really do? I have to say I’m suppressed… but maybe not a whole lot.

I know a lot of photographers as well, my friend Tak was pissed when his classes in Japan switched from dark room technologies to digital. He said it lost its magic.

I feel much the same way.

The magic and mystery is now gone... you snap the picture and boom you have an image... it may suck but you have your picture... and now its got all sorts of people thinking they can be the photographer at their daughters wedding, or sons barmtizfa (SP?), or cousins first birthday, or their youngest's senior pix.... and the sad truth is they cant... well they can but the images wont be as good, as with the trained eye of a professional.

Its like (film reference coming) having Mr. John Smith who shot The Smiths family Christmas (home movie) remaking On the Water Front... is what I’m saying getting across?

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 12-22-2005).]

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Don’t hate me because I love my self, and my talents... hate me because your jealous of them...LOL

I don't hate you, not at all. Total waste of energy.

How old are you again? You talk like you've been taking photos for three or four decades at least. Were you perhaps a buddy of George Eastman as well?

I believe know my Pentax MX and ME Super (which I bought when both were new) are older than you are, so give it a rest. A few of us have taken the occasional photo over the years.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I don't hate you, not at all. Total waste of energy. How old are you again? You talk like you've been taking photos for three or four decades at least. Were you perhaps a buddy of George Eastman as well? I believe know my Pentax MX and ME Super (which I bought when both were new) are older than you are, so give it a rest. A few of us have taken the occasional photo over the years.

Ok MR. Pentax... why don’t you tell me what you do for a living... no need to be so cryptic.
Age has nothing to do with talent, or natural skill. Leonardo davinci was already a brilliant artist at 20.
Even more so Michelangelo Buonarroti was an even better/more popular artist when he was 20 and Leonardo was in his 60s.

I too have a Pentax the Classic K1000, and *ist... Oh my gosh you’ve been taking photos for longer then I’ve been alive that’s so amazing you deserve amazing recognition because your years of experience over me make you so much better... LOL

And if you have been taking photos for years why not express your feelings on the subject at hand instead of insulting someone giving theirs... you know the grown up thing to do.

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 12-22-2005).]

Back on topic...

I teach how to edit video on PCs. The digital domain is a godsend to the amateur film maker. The only problem is, so many people get all caught up in the technology and never bother to learn the craftsmanship of creating a film/video which is able to capture the viewer’s interest. But these same people have a whole closet full of obsolete movie cameras, camcorders, etc. Go figure...

I think digital is great... it lets the story get told with less effort, less cost and the ability to repair a lot of problems without reshooting. With photography it lets people with thousands of dollars worth of equipment take shots that rival what the Hubble Space telescope was capable of when first launched. Atmospheric distortion... not a problem, can just take a bunch of digital shots and process them mathematically to eliminate errors in the chip, in the air, weather etc.

For a indie film maker.. it's cheap processing and film making. Film is expensive and costs money to process. Memory is comparatively cheap and mass storage even more so and getting cheaper by the day.

The idea that the digital image won't exist in X number of year but you can still pull out your negatives... umm, negatives get ruined by poor storage, prints even more so with age. That digital image can be converted to different formats and copied a billion times without degrading. In 100 years if you find that file, it will still be as beautiful or ugly as the first time the file was opened.

Pull out the photos from when you were a kid, they've yellowed, turned blue, fogged, been eaten by bugs, burned by the paper they were stored in, water damaged etc etc... Now go to an archive like the one I used to visit in Tucson , AZ and you could get the negative and prints that were archived for Ansel Adams and the like, but someone had to decide those were worth spending the cost of the storage. Not like sticking it on a CD/DVD/USB drive and tossing it in a box. With film you have to still be able to find someone that can process that format years later, I can see that being a problem with say... floppy discs and tape drives with digital, but it's not easy to get certain films developed anymore either. The backwards compatibility of most computer systems means I can still deal with formats that predate the internet, and if I don't have the program needed, it's still just a download away on the net. Will it still be in a hundred years? Who knows... but there won't be the need to 'restore' films for re-release, digital ones can just be reprinted in whatever the format of the day is...

quote Originally posted by Jeffery: ...who see it as a front to their rather exclusive industry….

I think you mean "an affront."

quote Originally posted by Phranc: I say video. Film is like adio tapes they lack the crispness. But digital lacks some of the "warmth". To hell with the industry and its snobs. I mean just look at the dribble they force feed to the masses. Don't know if that helps any but good luck movie guy.

This is technically wrong.

Depending on the sampling rate, digital must "step" transitions between colors and shades of gray. The higher the sampling rate, the better the tonality of the image, but the more storage space you need to place that info and the larger the pipeline needs to be to transfer the infor, say, for editing or uploading/downloading to the projection system(s). Also, the size of the imaging chip determines the resolution, to an extent. If pixels on the imager are made too small (to increase resolution) they become less sensitive to light. Too large and you get too large of a chip or logarithmically mre expensive lenses to get the image to the chip(s) properly (a whole 'nother issue, as flat field imaging is even more improtant to CCD/CMOS than to film).

Analog video, of course, has its limitations in generations. You can only go so far before noticable degradation in quality happens.

Film is the most fragile in the long term, for storage and copy reasons. However, the resolution of a 70mm piece of film has yet to be truly matched (even close) by digital. A film image is far more than 1080P. And grain technology in film yields a much truer color curve and grayscale (with proper processing) than digital can, as it is analogous to the amount and spectrum of light that touched it. The result of over 150 years of development. This also makes film a more expensive propsition in the long term, as you still have to buy and process the media. With digital, you just transfer it to your RAID and edit away on your Mac.

DZ, I feel your pain. I, too, am a photographer (hobbyist), and I love time in the darkroom. If you feel your gear is obsolete, feel free to ship it to me. PM me for my address. Truly, though, I find that the digital revolution has made much gear less pricey. I netted an Omega D6 with lens turntable (three lenses) with EL-Nikkor 50, 80 and 105 attached (I got a 135mm, too) and 4X5 carriers, with an Ilford cold light head and more for about $150, after I sold the sink that I didn't need. Digital's not all bad....

And Patrick (Not my son ), I am older than your ME and MX. But you are not older than my Speed Graphic or my Minolta II. Are you as old as my Polaroid SX-70? I daresay some are acting as old as my Fuji GA-645....

So Scott... your telling me you have every file you ever saved on your HD? Every picture ever taken, every word doc. typed, every webpage bookmark, every mp3 downloaded... all these things have been with you the last say 4 computers?

I highly doubt it... yes there will be a few files that some people will save and take along... but there are things like file corruption, accidental formatting... and I’m really sorry to have to burst your bubble but a cd with photos put on it can be destroyed as easily as negatives... I had a hard drive full of mp3’s that I tried to put in my new computer from my last one… nope new computer wouldn’t read the old hard drive… and I lost every file, same thing can happen with photos.

And backwards compatibility is not as great as you think it is... I have several cds with files backed up on them from my computer... 5 maybe 6 years ago (PII 400) and they don’t read in my current computer.... hmm I guess those were really worth saving...

You will never ever see the end of negative hard copies... they may take a holiday for the next couple of years, but soon people will see how they’ve lost their photos and go back to negatives... at least for professionals.

Not at all Dezie... but with the portability of files along with remote storage, it's becoming the norm. You don't save all your prints or negatives either do you? You might be young enough that you still do, but you sort through and toss the junk and save the good stuff. I don't think I've lost anything I valued in the way of computer files yet over the last 15 years. I've also have computers going back to a vic20 from 20+ years ago... so I can always send a file from an older computer to a newer one if I really felt the need, much like a photo archive.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: And Patrick (Not my son ), I am older than your ME and MX. But you are not older than my Speed Graphic or my Minolta II. Are you as old as my Polaroid SX-70?

Well, "Not my Dad", my vintage is 1955. Your SX-70 is just a baby.

In regards to Polaroid, I have a beautiful Model 150 Polaroid Land Camera here in mint condition. (Not quite as old as me!)

And no, I didn't take that grainy picture.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Not at all Dezie... but with the portability of files along with remote storage, it's becoming the norm. You don't save all your prints or negatives either do you? You might be young enough that you still do, but you sort through and toss the junk and save the good stuff. I don't think I've lost anything I valued in the way of computer files yet over the last 15 years. I've also have computers going back to a vic20 from 20+ years ago... so I can always send a file from an older computer to a newer one if I really felt the need, much like a photo archive.

Yes I have every negative of every photo I’ve ever taken saved in one of 4 1"binders.

Could you explain for me how you would get a file off your vic20 and put it on your new computer... because I don’t believe they sell a drive for those big flat floppy’s (sorry I don’t remember their name).

I cant even get games I played on my 486 to play on my 2+ghz computer...

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 12-23-2005).]