- Rule 1 of all electronic copying:
you must lose some quality whatever anyone claims....
- PRELUDE AND HISTORY
- June 1987 and I shoot "OUT OF
ORDER" one of the first shot on beta sp, then transferred to 35mm
feature films for theatrical release.
-
- I've also shot "SKIN DEEP"
on digi-beta which was transferred to 35mm and was nominated for a BAFTA
in the best Shorts category.
-
- Autumn 2000 I'd been asked to shoot "Living
In Hope" for Fluidity FIlms of Bristol. Living In Hope was released
in the UK during Summer 2002 and is a 100 minute feature directed by John
Miller and Produced by Guy De Beaujeu. The Film was set at a University
and followed the fortunes and development of four college newcomers who
"Go for It" in todays demanding world. We shot at 25 frames per
second on Super 16mm for transfer to Hi Definition for online editing before
laser transfer to 35mm. This was the intention at least, though the eventual
post-production path turned out differently. Shooting at 25p meant some
form of compromise later - obviously transfer to 24p was not an option,
so we agreed to transfer at 25 fps and accepted the 4% loss of speed and
accepted a movie 4% longer, which meant pitch bending the sound back up
4%.
- With the research for Living in Hope
I'd had some experience of Hi Def in a post production form (though ironically
this feature went a completely different route in the end, embracing digi beta and avid before returning
to 35mm) and now I was being asked
to shoot "G Spots" for Bagelfish Productions of Connecticut in
true Hi Def form. G Spots was to be Exec Produced by Carla Lynn Stockton,
Line Produced by Eve Applebaum, and Directed by Daniel Scott Fine. G Spots
was to be shot 24p and post produced at Du Art in New York on avid with
film composer before conform at 24p with laser transfer to 35mm at Du Art.
We shot in January 2001. This tape is being used by Du Art as a "how
to" tape of Hi Def to 35mm production.
-
- July 2002 - Since this production
I have shot some of the Glastonbury Movie (Director Julien Temple) on 50i
Hi Def.
-
- Lately I've shot BRED IN THE BONE
on Super 16mm for telecine to Digi Beta and transfer to 35mm.
DOWNLOAD HI DEFINITION
ARTICLE
-
- POST SCRIPT
- June 2002 and the Hi Def debate has moved
on apace... Panavision has announced it's cessation of production of 35mm
cameras and American Cinematographer is filled with the wonders of DV and
Hi Def. Panasonic are making a "slo-mo" version... the Viper
is on the horizon....
- The average Cinematographer is feeling
the need for an engineer onsite (call them on site colourist and people
feel better), Plaster a load of accessories around the camera and maybe
people will feel that the camera is less temporary, more substantial, and
therefore a credible alternative to film. Producers are worrying that if
the cinematographer carries the digi box on the shoot then time will be
wasted - and the shutter issue is rearing its ugly head (on a very big
production recently the cinematographer clearly had no idea that his problems
were due to not using a shutter....) and Lucas has issued Clones - every
shot post produced to the hilt so it's hard to see the Hi Def anyway. Amongst
all this is the simple politic of the introduction of a new video format
by Sony and the whole community is reeling with the fashionable need to
"get involved". The point is that there's now a decent video
format around (call it digital cinematography, call it what you will) and
we are all going to have to get across its indiosyncracies to get the best
out of it. It's suitable for some things and not for others - it's just
another way to inscribe an image and then display it to an audience....
and what the camera is pointed at is still the reason for the whole exercise
- and no amount of fancy talking will disguise a lack of artistic integrity
on screen.
- POST - POST SCRIPT
- July 2002 and I end up shooting the Glastonbury
Movie (a Documentary Cinema Feature about the famous Glastonbury Festival)
with a group of 9 other cameramen on DV Cam. A couple of us shoot on 50i
Hi Def and it begins to strike me that in the ineterlaced mode Hi Def behaves
similarly to Digi beta, and in the Progressive mode it's like 35mm. So,
for a start one has to draw a distinction between what I feel are two differing
cameras - 50 and 60i and 24 and 25P. This is reflected in exposure. In
Hi Def you can choose to set an exposure characteristic of either DV, Digi
or Hi Def, and this means going for a degree of underexposure if you want
proper Hi Def exposure, characteristic of film - so you have to get your
eye in... And this also means the quality conrol through the post production
process. A few years ago there were worldwide meetings about the issue
of cinematographers being excluded from the grade... Because grading came
so late to video there's a history to be confronted so that we actually
deal with the medium past the shoot stage.
- Both issues intrigue me - exposure and
post production control. I shall add more to this article on the suject
- I would really like to hear from others about where they feel exposure
should be placed within Hi Def, (I'm still seeing a lot of overexposed
Hi Definition footage).
- POST - POST - POST SCRIPT
- So I find my self at "Home"
the primary Hi Def Post Production outfit in the UK doing a Super 16mm
to Digi Beta Telecine, for edit and then burn up to 35mm. We start to talk
Hi Def and I get into a conversation with the main engineer there, and
it soon becomes apparent that Hi Def is a compression medium "Next
year will see an uncompressed Hi Def" they say.
- So, Avid's 1:1 online machine introduces
post production artefacts in dissolves and Digital Video Effects, Digi
Beta will compress 2:1 and so will Hi Def.... 4 generations down will display
the artefacts gathered along the way. Think about it. Grade to digi, online
to Digi - so far 2 generations, Copy master 3 generations. Worse: Grade
to Digi, digitaise to Avid 2 generations - do a dissolve, 3 generations,
output to digi, 4 generations, copy master 5 generations..... On the box,
not so good, burnt to film.... no!
- However, it should be rememeberd that
35 mm neg is high quality resolution, but 35mm print stock is said to be
worse than Digi - it's also said that you won't notice your avid artefacts
on the print - so it's swings and roundabouts again...
-
- CLIP
-
- e-mail me
- I'm happy to engage in differing perspecitves and learn more
-
- Download HiDefinition Article
-
- Return to Home Page