Cinema going Digital
21st Century and we are still stuck with the idea of shooting on celluloid film. Well this is true but things are
definitly changing now. If I talk about the feature length motion pictures, they are still shot on film because of numerous
reasons(we discuss later in the article), but for the documentary, indie film makers and for few others
who are not afraid of experimenting, Digital media is the buzz in the market.
Hello everyone. Lots of things are discussed here on PFC, I thought of a start with something different, yet very crucial and of much significance in the art of film making; Art of Cinematography. Cinematography is an art of movie photography, capturing frames with a film camera or in recent times, with a digital video camera. It is of much importance because everything you see with your eyes looks beautiful, but to capture that beautiful frame and projecting it on a white screen or broadcast it on a television and make the audience feel the way u felt, requires a lot of technique and effort. I know there are many aspiring film makers who visit this site everyday and keep thinking how they can start off. Photography is an expensive affair and considering the perfection with film, we are always apprehensive about digital photography. So for junta like us, here is some information on digital photography which can help.
The question- why go digital when the motion picture photography is been dominated by film and is still growing? The only answer which I can think of is; If I want to make a film and do not have enough budget, not many people in my crew and I cant wait to see the results, I am going to shoot with a digital camera. But hey…what about the quality? well I might not get the quality which I get on film but again if I pick my equipments right and if I have a vision, when the footage is shown on a TV or screen nobody will be able to tell the difference, not counting the experts here.
A brief on how the Film camera works:
A typical motion picture film camera in the market simply takes still photographs but at much higher rate when compared to a still photography camera. The industry std frame rate is 24 frames/sec for a movie camera. This frame rate can be varied depending upon the requirement for a particular shot. What we see in a movie theater is shot on 24 frames/sec
and in digital world we call it ‘24p’. Now one might wonder, if it is 24 frames/sec then why call it 24p and not 24f. well, in case of digital video ‘24p’ stands for 24 progressive frames/sec. “24p” is an critical and a must have feature on a digital video camera. we discuss it later. Coming back to the film camera, since the shooting mode in the camera is only
‘Frame-by-Frame’ which is also progressive, we do not need to use the term ‘24p’ in case of a film camera.
Digital video recording:
Digital media has a very vast range of products and formats to offer. As the options increase it is difficult to choose or even find what suits your requirement. To get to know Digital cameras a little better we need to go back to the basics.
There are two video recording or scan modes available in the industry; Interlaced and progressive. Interlaced technology is cheaper than progressive and can deliver very good images but you miss out on the Film like look on your footage. It will be more like what to see on the cable TV. The progressive on the other hand yields good results and had ability to give your video a film like look. This is possible because of the progessive scan and “24p”. Find out more about the modes here:
Next important thing for a digital camera is the resolution. This is achieved by putting the image producer chips or sensor which are also available in two kinds. CCD and CMOS sensors. CMOS sensors are cheap and can produce good quality images and also require less power to operate. The CCD sensors deliver superb images, eats up lots of battery power and are
expensive. Nowadays, A professional video camera comes fitted with 3 chips of same sizes and of the same type, wither 3CCD or 3CMOS. These three chips together produce great images as the RGB color processing is done by individual chips.
There are single chip cameras also available in the market but I would suggest to go with 3CCD if you are going to make a film or a Documentary. The video cameras provide resolutions 1080p(1920×1080), 1080i(1440×1080), 720p(1280×720), 480p and 480i. Here ‘p’ stands for progressive and ‘i’ for interlaced scan. Choice between interlaced or progressive entirely depends on purpose and shooting conditions. For movies and films progressive is better cause it is easier to transfer the footage to the celluloid film and also because of progressive look. The interlaced video is the most watched format because all the TV sets are interlace scan. However, with the LCD and plasma TVs coming in, this is also going to change in the near future.
More on 24p:
‘24p’ is one feature what indie film makers always look for in a digital video camera. We know that ‘24p’ is progressive scan at 24 frames/sec and it gives the best results with resolution at 1080p or 720p. But the technology is growing and now it is possible to achieve 24 f/sec with the interlaces scan also. This is done internally within the camera while recording the video. Here the video is recorded at 30 frames/sec interlaced, then after 2:3 pulldown we get 24 frames/sec at the loss of 10-15% of the resolution. This can also be achieved by the high-end editing softwares but again, at the cost of resolution. If you have a tight budget and can compromise a bit on the results, Interlace scan cameras are way to go.
To choose between the huge range of digital cameras is the most difficult task. Ofcourse there are number of reputed brands out there but you got choose the one which serves your purpose and you get the best out of it. With a film camera you dont worry much about the camera and there are very minimal chances of loosing the resolution after post production. However, with digital, one needs to be careful while picking up the equipment and also in the post so that you get what you wanted. If everything is well taken care of, it is very difficult for one to tell the difference between a film footage and a professional digital video.
In west, short films and documentary film makers rely upon the digital video as it is easy to use, cheap and gives compairable results to the film. There is a word in the industry that Steven spielberg, James cameron and other are using Panasonic P2 cameras for their research. Its sign that digital making its way into the film industry.
Happy shooting!
Filed Under
Movies , Cinematography, Documentary, Production, Teaching Film-making, Television, Video
Loading ...
46 Responses to “Cinema going Digital”
Leave a Reply
(Ref smilies)
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
-
Advertisement
-
- Random thoughts on Yuv
- Dev.D- Emosional Aty
- An Interview With Oye Lucky Lucky Oye’s Dolly - Richa C
- SORRY
- The story of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi Reve
- Ada Music Review
- Ajay TG- Man With A Camera.
- Maharathi: Murder is in the Details (Zero Spoiler Review)
- Mukhbiir Versus Chamku – A toss-up between two lone rangers
- Random thoughts on Yuvvraaj
-
Advertisement
Hottest Today:
Recent Posts:
Welcome to PFC Saurabh. A very nice informative piece.
Thank you
Nice piece Saurabh. Very nicely explained. Mainstream Hollywood filmmakers are not only experimenting with digital technology, they are even shooting huge movies on it. The last Star Wars movie was shot completely on HD. For independent filmmakers with a decent budget, HD seems to be a lucrative option. Check out films like “Me, You, And Everyone We Know”, a low budget, delightful indie comedy shot on HD. It looks like 35mm.
On the other hand, not everyone has the money to shoot on HD and for these people, DV is a fine substitute. A classic example of what you said about content over form, you should watch a film called “2:37″ by Murali Thalluri, an Australian director of Indian descent. It’s one of the best indie films I have seen last year, and the camera work is quite wonderful, and the whole film is shot with a PD-150 - which is now on the lower end of professional DV cameras. Heck David Lynch shot “Inland Empire” completely with a PD-150 and it’s visually astounding.
As you said, its about vision and storytelling. Would Rushdie be any less entertaining to read if his books were printed on recycled paper?
Nowadays the quality of affordable DV cameras has improved so much. Sony’s line of HDV camcorders are absolutely stunning. You can shoot 24p, near HD quality video on Mini DV tapes. The technology has leveled the playing field now.
Another strong DV film from last year is “Bubble” directed by Steven Soderberg. No one would give him money to make the film, so he took his DV camera and told his story. And what a story it was.
@OM: Thank you OM.
@Vijay: I completely agree with you VijaY. DV has opened so many options to the film makers and you really dont need any fancy equipment to make a good looking film. Now there is HD cameras in the market at the prosumer level and they give film like results, facility to edit the video at home and other post production work.
The only thing you need to become a film maker is the passion and a little bit of knowledge. There are no excuses for expensive equipments and poor logistics.
Saurabh
this is truly the most informative blog here on PFC.
Thanks for it. I’m a big fan of DV. The possibilities of DV is infinite. It gives freedom to so many creative people the wings to fly.
I agree with Vijay. BUBBLE is an awesome film. What makes it even more amazing is that Sodenberg made it between his OCEAN movies.
Vijay have you seen the Philipino film CAVITE?
It was made by this philipino guy from San Diego with 4000$. it is very inspiring. I loved that film.
Yeah Cavite is really cool. Really liked it.
= Welcome aboard Saurabh. I hope Sam reads this one… Sam provided some pretty strong counter views in one of his past posts.
= I was put off by the story of Cavite… I think my tolerance level is shrinking as I age (shouldn’t it be the reverse)… Darn… I need some meditatiion techniques that I can practice before watching movies.
Saurabh,
Did u speak at broadcast india exhibition last year?
To mimic film medium u also need to have the magical depth of field for which u will have to rent 35mm(film)lenses(prime). Which is additional cost.
Also not sure how the progressive digital image is, compared to the image on the film? Can u compare both of them.
If magnetic tapes r used then again the quality suffers. Hard drives would be the best option to capture the image.
The cameras Hollywood uses for their films r expensive. Their rent is very high.
The new age digital cameras like Panavision Genesis (Apaclypto was shot on) r still not available in India. They would be very expensive.
Arri D20 is another talked about digital camera.
Hopefully we would see them in a years time in India.
Then there is Sony HDW900 which is there in Bombay.The last Star war film was shot on this camera. But again expensive 25000 rs/day.
Not sure about the results of the other low end cameras.
Could u post a digital video, which u think is as good as film. Till now just heard people talk a lot about how good digitally shot movie is, but never seen one.
Manjeet,
I have never been to the broadcast india exhibition. I’ll try next year if I am in India.
You mentioned very good points like the media used in the digital cameras and about the 35mm lenses. Was planning to cover in the next post. Professionals do use 35mm lenses with the DV cameras to give it film like look. but this significantly adds up the cost.
Yes, a progressive scan video recorded on a HDD or P2 card can be compared to film quality.
For the sample videos, you can try the following links:
http://www.citizencine.com/films/celestie/clip01.mov
http://www.citizencine.com/films/celestie/clip02.mov
http://www.citizencine.com/films/cel…cene06_web.mov
These were shot on $4000 canon HD mini-dv camera. I just wonder if it would have been a DV-cam or a P2 camera, you cant tell the difference.
Sourabh: It was productive to read your blog.
I do agree with Manjeet about the cost. Having a progressive scan video camera might not be just enough. I don’t know why many of us try to compare video with film. I have shot and loved some digital stuff like Sony F900 HD, Panasonic varicam HD, Panasonic P2 HD or SD, DVC pro 25 & 50 SD, DVX100 A & B both SD. I used to face the same topic when I was a teaching asst. in film school and the students would praise the digital options mostly because it has made the filmmaking approachable. I do like this aspect of it. But the down side of it is that many of them take it so easy. I remember when I was shooting my first film in 35mm with the limited budget. It took me two months to pre-produce for a 15 min film, coz I couldn
Manjeet: Capturing in hard drive would be best only if you know the final destination of the project. If it was to put on theatre by printing on film then god bless the project with money.
Anshul,
Thanks for the info. One other reason why Apaclypto was shot digitally was the use of minimal light, use ambient light. Cost restriction was not there offcourse. They used 3 genesis and arri 435 for some shots.
The other myth is HD! There r people who think they can use a sony hd handycam and make a film, which would be comparable to star wars in quality:) So the range of HD is not quite understood well.
The other good option, which I think could be better than HD is super 16 format. Film stock is 1/4th of that compared to 35mm. It has been purposely used in films like ‘last king of Scotland’ for the grainy effect. Again the post would be little expensive for blow up and if u go for DI. But gives much freedom on retakes. You could go 1:10 compared to 1:3 in 35 mm. I am seriously thinking about this option, whenever I get a chance to direct my first feature, as I know I wont have luxury of stars or big budget. The blow up or DI could also done by the distributors, who agree to buy ur film. So if ur confident about ur film than super 16 is a great option to go for!
Blowing up S-16 to 35mm costs about $30-35K say if you have a 90 min final cut. Super 16 is a wonderful option to go with because your camera package and grip package on the whole becomes smaller too. So you save on that front. Taxi No. 9211 is a recent Hindi film that was shot on Super 16 and it looked pretty darn good. The more well known one of course is Monsoon Wedding which was beautifully blown up to 35. This is of course as of today, the old school way of doing it. DI will of course be pricier.
I think the indie market, in the US at least is more content oriented than form oriented. Of course the film has to be technically proficient but at the end of the day, the fancy high end HD formats are used for mammoth budget VFX filled studio films. I think people are well aware of the costs involved on that front as well and are pretty well aware that a prosumer Sony HD camcorder cant quite get you that kind of resolution. However I do feel that the way prosumer models are developing, they are slowly replacing 16 and S-16 as the cost effective alternatives to shooting film.
Anshul, very valid point about the story deciding the format. A film like “2:37″ or “Inland Empire” just cannot be done on film, or at least would be very difficult to do. Usage of DV accentuates the intimacy, freedom, and rawness in these films.
let’s also not forget michael mann and his “collateral” with cruise and foxx.. mann literally built a camera which had built-in hard drives to capture the footage. at the end of the day, just plug it into a comp and there you have your footage. then again, like anshul mentioned for cases like this.. “god bless the project with money”. when you have cruise on a project, the money just flows.
i acted in a film last summer which was shot utilizing the (canon) XL2’s 24p on. we just had the premiere a couple of weeks back, and i must say i was STUNNED with how close the footage looks to film. the grainy look was unbelievable. i’m sure even that’s outdated now, but i believe at the time, the sony and panasonic counterparts were looking at at least $800 more than the XL2.
vijay, had no idea “taxi” was shot on super 16! thx for this info..
Striker, off the surface, when you shoot footage on an XL2 or the DVX-100 or even the Sony HDV cameras on 24p, because of the frame rate, they look sharp and close to film if viewed on a television. But once you blow that image size up and project it on a large screen, it doesnt look half as good. Which is why film still maintains its position as the ultimate filmmaking medium. The high end professional HD cameras like the ones Lucas prefers to use are gradually developing and looking to equal the resolution of 35mm film, but they’re still not there.
By the way, if you have seen Kamalahaasan’s film Mumbai Express, it would be of interest to you that the film was actually shot entirely on Mini DV 24p with a Panasonic DVX-100 camera. Then of course, they spent a bomb to make 35mm prints. The film itself was quite crappy and the look of it too wasn’t anything to write home about. But when watching it off a DVD, it’s hard to tell that it was shot on DV. I’m sure on the big screen, one can definitely call it. The point is, the technology promised a lot more than it could offer and people did experiment with it.
On a side note, I never did understand why Michael Mann shot certain portions of collateral on HD. It was a mix of 35 and HD. On a creative level, I didn’t quite see the point. Not crazy about the film either, but that’s a different discussion.
Vijay n Striker,
Collateral has most of its scenes in the cab itself. There r few scenes, which r lit by the light coming from the cell phone. Again like Apaclypto the requirement was shooting in the ambient condition. The cab itself was fitted with uniquely designed lights. The film could not have captured the image in such a low light.
There is a reason for using digital medium in studio films. The digital setup they use could be more expensive then the conventional film set up.
found mumbai exp too boring to sit thru.. but props to kamal for using DV for it.. i remember coming across numerous articles that focused more on the technology used in the film than the film itself. as for mann, i remember seeing the “special features” on the DVD where he discusses his reasons for shooting it in a hybrid format.. makes for a great watch.. basically i think it was just an experiment on many levels.. to introduce the medium in a mainstream product, to see the quality of the end product he can get, how it affects his budget etc..
Vijay,
Lets not forget that XL2, DVX-100 and other HD cameras are prosumer level cameras. The footage from those cameras might not look film like when projected on the screen. However, high-end professional cameras which has greater CCD size and comes with 35mm lenses, can give you a film like look on a big screen.
As far as HD is concerned, it is not possible to shoot HD video at 24p. The cameras which offer 24p with HD, they simply compromise on the resolution and they convert the 60i image to 24p. This is why we simply cannot take full advantage of HD with 24p.
Saurabh, that was exactly my point in my response to striker. It’s a marketing gimmick that forces excited consumers to believe they are shooting in HD. But again, I guess its all dependent on the purpose of the film. Many years ago, a layman could not try to make a film despite his interest, because of the costs and logistics involved. Today the technology offers everyone an opportunity to learn, and if they really apply themselves to it, create work that is worthy of exhibition.
Thank you Vijay. Very important point that you mentioned- projecting in big screen. Importance of resolution can be praised here. All the formats have a curtain Horizontal line resolution. Video format with horizontal resolution estimates:
Analog TV Broadcast / Analog Cable TV= 330 lines
S-VHS/S-VHSC= 400 lines
DVD-R/-RW/+R/+RW= 250 - 400+ lines (Depends on recording mode and compression used)
MiniDV= 400 - 520 lines
MicroMV= 500 lines
Commercial DVD= Up to 540 lines
Standard definition: NTSC= 525, PAL= 625
Technically, anything that breaks the PAL barrier of 625 lines could be called high definition. The most common HD resolutions are 720p and 1080i lines. The highest possible resolution it is possible to record on HDCAM tape is 1550 horizontal lines.
VS
35mm film can get 4000 lines; it can be more or less depending on the scan in the lab. Mostly used scan during transfer is 2k, which is half of it and still looks great. 16 mm can get roughly half of 35mm but may get best of it when scanned in 2k. Still way more then any digital format as far as the comparison goes.
Guys, I might be missing or may be wrong (I hope not) on a lot of info here please excusing me for that.
Manjeet 16mm can be a great option. Wish you the best.
Anshul
Welcome to Passion for Cinema. We miss you here in LA. Esp whenever we are hungry. Neil’s Wrap party was cool. I passed out big time. Galib took care of me. Him & Ratna were very nice. Brandon said the film looks good. I hope it comes out fantastic. But we missed u & Nisha that nite a lot.
Of all the blogs u had to attack this one & i’m not surprised. Anshul was our gyan guru as far as such technical aspects of film making was concerned. We shot a music video together in Mojave Desert. We can write a book about that experience….hehe.. Anshul u gotta do something to upload ur film online.
COLLATERAL to me is so far the best looking Digital film till now. Its done smartly in the night. Too much light flatens DV. In Miami Vice the interior shots look bad. And the shower scene of Jamie Foxx had a porn look about it.
I have to admit that I learnt quite a few things in this discussion. We have a great knowledge bank on PFC.
Thank you Vijay, Anshul, striker, Manjit and Mainak.
this was a great first post saurabh.. thanks for bringing it up. you may be interested in reading this earlier post written by sam longoria..
http://passionforcinema.com/filmmaking-shoot-real-film/
How could i forget to mention RED.
The RED ONE camera is developed by Oakley(Yeah the Sunglasses) founder Jim Jannard, a serious photography and video buff who owns about a thousand different cameras himself.
http://www.red.com
thats their official website.
I was pretty excited about it. Haven’t checked on it recently, but it was THE BUZZ of NAB last year. There is almost a war going on online about this camera. All the big players like Sony & Panasonic are probably embarrased & scarred of its posibility of merging prosumer & high end qualities into a 17K$ camera which can kill them. Hence there are a lot of blogs where experts are trying to bury it even before its out.
I suggest you guys go to their official website.
My guess is you all already have. And I wonder what your opinions are…
Vijay, Saurabh, Manjeet, Anshul, Striker…
Here is a very interesting, detailed comparison between the Red One and the SI-2K
http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/11/si-2k-vs-red-one.html
This is such a great discussion! Thanks Saurabh for starting it up and of course Manjeet and Anshul and all for such great inputs!
Here’s a relevant experience which I’d love to share with you, my PFC Posse:
In Oct. 2005 we shot a great little short comedy called “Cash On Delivery”. There were, but of course, many budget constraints but thankfully our crew included Producer/Director Manny Parmar (who loves to experiment with the digital medium) and the DOP was Thomas Billingsly (equally experimental, a wicked photographer and fantastic DOP).
Anyhow the film was shot on the Panasonic DVC Pro50 but using film lenses (which we luckily managed to get a great rental deal on).
The DVC Pro50 doubles the coded video bitrate from 25 Mbit/s to 50 Mbit/s, and uses 4:2:2 chroma subsampling instead of 4:1:1. The higher datarate cuts recording time in half (compared to DVCPRO25), but the resulting picture quality rival Digital Betacam.
With the film lenses, we got a great look, which we found to be superior than shooting Super 16 (which is the format I believe Manny shot his last film “Another Wedding Story”), at least on DVD format on different TV screens. Can’t really compare on the big screen as different projectors were used.
Being Vancouver, it rained 5 of our 6 shooting days (which was hell considering the story takes place all over 1 afternoon). BUT the rain went a long way to give us quite a rich, textured look.
Other things to consider include your production design (we used various shades of blue which contrast beautifully against the lush green exteriors).
What really worked in our favour, colour timing, which our Director is unreal at. Now I mentioned that the colour-sampling resolution is 4:2:2 instead of 4:1:1, which gave us such a vibrant look to start. But once the colours were punched up just enough (we didn’t want the reds to bleed when shown on the big screen) it looked amazing.
I’ll see if I can get Manny to upload the film somewhere so you can get an idea of how great the final product actually looked. Besides, its a very entertaining script (mind you as the writer I have a biased ;p )
So guys, if you don’t have a big budget to work with this could be a great option.
While we’re on the topic, anyone see the trailors for “Karma Confessions and Holi?”. That’s totally shot on video! The depth of frame (in many cases lack thereof) is a dead giveaway!
Anyone know what exactly they shot on??
For a film starring Sushmita Sen, Naomi Campbell, Randeep Hooda, Suresh Oberoi, and Robert DeNiro’s daughter Drena you’d think the project would at least look “bigger” than the Indian average tele-soap…
That is awesome Tony. We can upload your video on PFC. Keep us posted about it.
Can direct your question on what it was shot on, to the director, Manish Gupta (NY, White Plains based). He is a personal friend and can perhaps share it with us. Will check with him tonite
Tony you will be surprised, but Karma Confessions and Holi was shot on HD with a Panasonic AJ-HDC27 Varicam. Movie looks very strange.
* As listed on imdb.
1. The 4th Starwars was shot with Sony F900 (this camera shoots only in YUV (422) - Chroma is subsampled)
2. The 5th and 6th were shot with Sony F950 (This camera can do YUV or RGB (444) - RGB is better for green screens since no subsampling occurs)
3. Both Collateral and Miami Vice used Thomson Viper camera. - In filmstream mode
4. David Fincher’s latest movie ‘Zodiac’ also used the Viper and is by far the best looking ‘digital’ movie.
Here is an article about it
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoedsys/revfeat/video_going_tapeless/
5. Panavision Genisis was used in Superman (It is based on Sony f950)
6. Arri D20 is also a similar camera
All these 6 cameras are Digital and produce 1920 x 1080 imaged
The Dalsa Origin is a 4K camera (4096 x 3112). This produces a much higher resolution image, This has been used on some commercials
The Red One camera is also a new 4K camera that. Working prototypes were shown in LA last year. Due to ship late this year.
http://www.red.com
= damn!!! this is one helluva Post and Comment thread…!!! love it!!!
mainak, had no idea about the red.. thanks for the link!
san, red’s website says it’s available to ship early 2007..
Gentlemen,
A great post by Saurabh and an even more informative follow up discussion by manjeet, anshul and others.
Saurabh, it would be great if you follow this post up by writing on good dv cams and lenses. MY personal opinion is that lenses that are used with dvcams matter a great deal. This is reinforced by tony mera naam comment. I would like to know your take on this.
Thanks.
I am taking a print out of this thread Saurabh
for future reference!
Does anyone know more about STILL LIFE by Jia Shangke, heard he shot that on HD??
K3
I am definitely looking forward to another post on the cameras and lenses. Also, I am planning to cover the digital media used and the pros and cons.
Research is on.
hey saurabh, that was a great post which helps people like us interested in filmmaking to get more knowledge of what types of cameras will be more helpful for us if we foray into filmmaking and require a camera as the camera is the most important piece of equipment….
I look forward to getting more info on the various types of cameras and lenses from you…
Keep it up!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh really Vijay? Thanks for the info… There’s just something about the look of the film that bothers me… mind u I saw it online so maybe its not the intended aspect ratio… and its likely compressed… I dunno… daal mein kuch kaala hai… yah phir gate mein baal hai… yah phir daal mein baal hai… maamla gadbad hai…
Anyone who sees the trailor of “Karma Confessions & Holi” please do comment on the “look” of the film…
And yeah Vjiay, it does look like quite a strange film…
I’m hoping it’s just a bad trailer. The shots looked very uninteresting to me. But one can’t really say unless one views it in the context of the whole film, so let’s see.
hey saurabh and everyone, is been refreshing to see the support this DV discussion has been getting. i would like to say that Me along with my partner Devaki Singh, made and released our first feature, ‘13th floor’ completely on DV. we shot the film in 6 days, because of the story and the content. but yes DV did give us that freedom and scope to not have to worry about, loading magazines and ‘checking gates’ every time. its a much longer story but to keep it really brief, i think more than new film makers using the DV format its the people with the moneybags that need to see the true potential of the format and give it the much needed shot in the arm. more later…good going Saurabh
Luke Kenny of MTV fame? [V}, BOMBAY BOYS?
Hi Saurabh and everyone,
What a fantastic discussion. I’m an Indian-American writer director planning to shoot a film in India. I would consider the budget to be low but not an ultra low budget. I am debating whether to shoot on Super 16 or to shoot on HD. The goal would be to get it in the can (or Hard Drive), go the film festival route and then worry about the blow up to 35. People mentioned here HD gives a lot of versatility. I do currently plan on using a good amount of available light and some documentary style techniques as part of the look. It is interesting that you say that HD is better for this (available light). My experience is mostly with DV and I know that low lighting situations create a lot of video grain in situations where I felt the right film stock properly exposed would do better. Perhaps HD is better in low light than DV is (beyond the obvious resolution differences)?
Also, I was wondering if anyone here knows about the availability of HD cameras in India. Is it pretty much that anything you can get in the States you can get there? The likelihood if I shot on HD is that I would use something like the Sony F900 family or the Varicam, not the super high end hollywood HD cams mentioned but not the prosumers either. Lenses too? I would definitely shoot with something with interchangeable lens and want to rent prime lens designed for video. Also this would be not in Bombay but in Delhi or Chandigarh.
Thanks and thank you all for your really informative comments.
dont know much about cameras but heard that 2 theatres in Dubai would now show only digital movies ( todays first show is MUMMY - they say that digital is better clarity and sound ). How many theatres ( cinea halls ) in India do we have, which can show digital ?