kevinw
08-27-2003, 03:45 PM
From HD buyer web sight
http://www.hdtvbuyer.com/Htm/homeset.htm
Reality Check
The Truths, Half-Truths and Outright Falsehoods about High-Def
By Peter Caranicas
Editor, Special Projects
Film & Video Magazine
One thing is for sure: Over the past few years, production and post have been rocked by
seemingly contradictory statements about the merits of shooting on high-def formats.
How many times have you heard one or more of the following: Shooting HD is
cheaper. HD equipment costs more. You?ll save with HD because you can shoot all the
stock you want. Film is more ?artistic,? HD looks more ?real.? Post is easier with HD.
These and many other statements are spinning heads in Hollywood and elsewhere,
largely because each one contains an element of truth - and an element of deception.
Here are the views on HD of some leading cinematographers and equipment rental
executives.
What does Peter Abel, president of Abel Cine Tech, say to filmmakers who ask him
whether HD is a good alternative to film for shooting a specific project? ?First and
foremost, I ask them, ?What needs to be achieved creatively?? Then I ask them about
their budget. Finally I ask them what format they?ll need to deliver it on, and what are
the project?s long-term prospects.?
?Deliverables have a huge impact on everything else,? adds Rich Abel, Peter?s brother
and VP of the New York and Los Angeles-based equipment rental house. ?If you?re
finishing on film but shooting on video, you have to do a film-out, which is a
reasonably large expense, whereas if you?re finishing on video you don?t have that
expense.?
Other critical factors include shooting ratio and creative intent. For example, are you
making a movie, a video, a commercial, or something for broadcast? The bottom line,
says Peter, is that ?we can?t give people absolute answers. We can try to educate them
about different options.? Abel rents both film and video gear. ?We really try hard not to
steer people in any direction,? says Peter. ?We try to give them accurate information
with which to make their decision.?
But an equipment house doesn?t
necessarily have to carry film gear
to advise diehard filmmakers to
stay with film. Plus 8 Digital, with
offices in New York, Burbank and
Vancouver, is perhaps the world?s
leading supplier of HD equipment
to the production community. The
firm put together the package of
five Sony HDC-F950 cameras
and related gear recently shipped
off to Australia to shoot George
Lucas?s Episode III.
?I would advise someone to shoot
on film if that?s what they?re
most comfortable with. I would
never take on a film project. It?s
not appropriate,? says Henry
Bornstein, senior account
executive in Plus 8?s New York
office.
On the other hand, Bornstein
explains, if the ultimate
deliverable is electronic, or even if
a filmmaker wants to create a
project intended for multiple
purposes - TV and DVD as well
as theatrical - and if that product
will undergo heavy digital post
and visual effects - then it?s
probably better to start in HD.
Shooting High
One of the biggest factors driving
filmmakers toward HD is a high
shooting ratio, since using up a lot
of tape is less costly than using up
film - plus the tape is re-usable.
Jim Chressanthis, ASC, shot HD
on a recently completed
documentary consisting of four
one-hour episodes for Discovery
Networks.
Called Eye of the Beholder, the doc
examines unusual human habits
like body modification and was
shot all around the world. The
shooting ratio was a whopping
100-to-1. ?Shooting on HD tape
was a very logical choice,? says
Chressanthis. ?We averaged five
hours of shooting per day, and
there was a day when I recorded
eight hours of material. It was a
huge job.?
Chressanthis shot with a Sony
900 series HD camera modified by
Clairmont Camera, the North
Hollywood rental house, which
also has offices in Vancouver and
Toronto. The modified camera
?addresses one of the critical
problems everyone is facing: back
focus,? explains Chressanthis.
?The Sony camera runs hot? and
the viewfinder doesn?t detect the
change of focus within the
camera, where the image focuses
on the CCD imaging device.
Clairmont ?put a hardened steel
mount on it, similar to film
cameras, which allows you to hold
focus.?
While Chressanthis recognizes the economic reasons for going to HD for this particular
project, he thinks he ?would have gotten higher quality and little more ease of camera
movement in Super 16. HD cameras are heavy and big. The 900 is twice the weight of
an Aaton.?
Cinematographer John Le Blanc is a recent migrant to HD, having shot only on film
from 1965 until last year. He recently used HD to acquire footage for a Sony
PlayStation game. ?It was the perfect application for HD,? he explains. ?It was a green
screen assignment that?s going to be plunked right into the game itself. It?s going to
stay in the digital world. I was able to set up my monitors and did my [in-camera color
calibration] right there. It was sort of like bringing your timer with you. Sometimes
people tell me I can fix it in telecine. I say, why don?t we fix it right now and then we
won?t have to save it in telecine.?
As with other DPs, the advantages of HD for Le Blanc include situations with a high
shooting ratio, and the fact that you don?t have to stop often to reload. ?If somebody
just wants to let the camera run, it?s perfect for that.? But there?s a flip side. ?The
editor now may take weeks and weeks to wade through the stuff - now you?re tying
up an editor.?
Similarly, while it?s good that with HD ?we can save money in film stock and
processing, we may have to add a day or two in our schedule because now we?re
lugging [more] stuff around. And you still need a gaffer and grip and the same amount
of camera guys. Where you save is in the fact that when you go to sleep at night you
know what [it looks like].?
ollow the Dollars
Perhaps no one in Hollywood is more enthusiastic about HD than Randall Dark,
president of HD Vision Studios, a company that provides a full spectrum of HD
production, post and rental services: ?I say use HD for everything, immediately. I say
that to anyone who comes through my door. The world is going digital, wide screen,
high resolution - period.?
Dark acknowledges that for huge features budgeted at, say, $150 million, the
percentage saved by shooting in HD is minimal. ?But if you?ve got a $3 million film,
the percent you save by not buying raw stock, processing it and transferring it jumps up
dramatically. To me, it?s follow the dollars.?
Those same dollars are also pushing episodic TV producers toward HD. ?Pilots are
being shot on 24p not because the directors and DPs want to use it. It?s the bean
counters who are making those decisions. It?s cost savings,? says Dark.
Vancouver-based cinematographer Scott Williams shot two seasons of PAX TV?s
Mysterious Ways, the first on 35mm, the second on HD. ?They decided to switch for
financial reasons,? he says. ?One of the producers told me they saved about $1 million
(Canadian) during the second season? because of the switch, ?although not a dime
trickled down to me.?
Adds Williams: ?At first I was completely bummed out: you know, video! I had an
elitist attitude toward it. But it was a very positive experience. There are some striking
advantages to shooting on that medium, and number one is the monitor. There?s less
guesswork.?
Another Vancouver-based cinematographer, Henry Chan, CSC, draws a careful
distinction between film and HD. ?You can?t compare HD to film. You can try to
make it look like film, but I don?t think it?s the right call. But the number-one
question is money, and that?s the producer?s call.?
And producers are opting for HD because ?most people find that at the end of the day
HD is cheaper,? says Tom ****inson, general manager of Burbank-based rental house
Bexel. ?But even though HD can save you money, it doesn?t save money line by line.
It?s more complicated than that. Renting the camera actually costs more than film, but
you save on processing.
?With HD you also have the ability to look at high-quality images right then and
there, so you can make decisions and start shooting minutes later. You have to factor
that in too. However, you may be giving up familiarity and a comfort level with film?s
workflow, and it can be difficult to bring a film production team into an HD
environment.?
****inson adds that the level of sophistication about HD has risen greatly. No longer
does Bexel get questions from producers about whether or not to shoot on HD. Rather,
they ask about different options for HD cameras and lenses. As for feature producers,
they?re more likely to go HD if below-the-line costs are a significant portion of the
budget. ?One of the reasons you?re not seeing more HD in the bigger budgets is
because even though money is a key motivator, HD is only a below-the-line savings.?
The exception: George Lucas. He is ?primarily oriented to special effects, working in
the computerized world the majority of the time. He starts electronically, goes into
digital bits, putting stuff into workstations. HD lends itself to that.?
Then there?s the world of high-end TV commercials, which is also dominated by
35mm. According to Tom Fletcher of rental facility Fletcher Chicago, ad agencies ?are
behind the rest of the production community in embracing HD. Many have a toe in the
water, but that?s all. Most agencies won?t dictate what it will be shot on, leaving that
up to individual directors.
?We make presentations at agencies all the time and they have no idea that any film
other than Star Wars has been made electronically, or that any TV shows are shot on
HD. Most agency people are just not educated about it.? Fletcher goes so far as to
predict that ?some agency will lose an account because they?re unaware of what?s
going on with high definition, not only in acquisition, but also delivery of HD to the
home.?
Perhaps another reason Madison Avenue has been slowest to embrace HD is that
commercials are ephemeral. Cars change models, candy wrappers change appearance,
airlines disappear. In other words, the shelf life of a TV spot can be very short.
The opposite is true in TV entertainment, where vast riches have been made in
syndicated reruns, and in film, where DVD technology has given seemingly eternal life
to older movies. ?A big question is the evergreening of material for future use,? says
Bob Zahn, president of rental house BVR in New York. In TV production, HD is being
used by a growing number of producers - especially those who formerly shot on
standard def - to future-proof their programs.
But there are eternal truths that run even deeper than money. ?HD may be the hottest
thing in the industry right now,? says Zahn, ?but it?s a good story that will capture
[moviegoing] audiences.
?HD is the hottest thing in the industry - really the 24 frame rate is the hottest thing.
It?s attracting filmmakers who have shied away from video traditionally. Because of
this frame rate, and signal manipulation, you can closely replicate the look and feel of
film. But not exactly.?
http://www.hdtvbuyer.com/Htm/homeset.htm
Reality Check
The Truths, Half-Truths and Outright Falsehoods about High-Def
By Peter Caranicas
Editor, Special Projects
Film & Video Magazine
One thing is for sure: Over the past few years, production and post have been rocked by
seemingly contradictory statements about the merits of shooting on high-def formats.
How many times have you heard one or more of the following: Shooting HD is
cheaper. HD equipment costs more. You?ll save with HD because you can shoot all the
stock you want. Film is more ?artistic,? HD looks more ?real.? Post is easier with HD.
These and many other statements are spinning heads in Hollywood and elsewhere,
largely because each one contains an element of truth - and an element of deception.
Here are the views on HD of some leading cinematographers and equipment rental
executives.
What does Peter Abel, president of Abel Cine Tech, say to filmmakers who ask him
whether HD is a good alternative to film for shooting a specific project? ?First and
foremost, I ask them, ?What needs to be achieved creatively?? Then I ask them about
their budget. Finally I ask them what format they?ll need to deliver it on, and what are
the project?s long-term prospects.?
?Deliverables have a huge impact on everything else,? adds Rich Abel, Peter?s brother
and VP of the New York and Los Angeles-based equipment rental house. ?If you?re
finishing on film but shooting on video, you have to do a film-out, which is a
reasonably large expense, whereas if you?re finishing on video you don?t have that
expense.?
Other critical factors include shooting ratio and creative intent. For example, are you
making a movie, a video, a commercial, or something for broadcast? The bottom line,
says Peter, is that ?we can?t give people absolute answers. We can try to educate them
about different options.? Abel rents both film and video gear. ?We really try hard not to
steer people in any direction,? says Peter. ?We try to give them accurate information
with which to make their decision.?
But an equipment house doesn?t
necessarily have to carry film gear
to advise diehard filmmakers to
stay with film. Plus 8 Digital, with
offices in New York, Burbank and
Vancouver, is perhaps the world?s
leading supplier of HD equipment
to the production community. The
firm put together the package of
five Sony HDC-F950 cameras
and related gear recently shipped
off to Australia to shoot George
Lucas?s Episode III.
?I would advise someone to shoot
on film if that?s what they?re
most comfortable with. I would
never take on a film project. It?s
not appropriate,? says Henry
Bornstein, senior account
executive in Plus 8?s New York
office.
On the other hand, Bornstein
explains, if the ultimate
deliverable is electronic, or even if
a filmmaker wants to create a
project intended for multiple
purposes - TV and DVD as well
as theatrical - and if that product
will undergo heavy digital post
and visual effects - then it?s
probably better to start in HD.
Shooting High
One of the biggest factors driving
filmmakers toward HD is a high
shooting ratio, since using up a lot
of tape is less costly than using up
film - plus the tape is re-usable.
Jim Chressanthis, ASC, shot HD
on a recently completed
documentary consisting of four
one-hour episodes for Discovery
Networks.
Called Eye of the Beholder, the doc
examines unusual human habits
like body modification and was
shot all around the world. The
shooting ratio was a whopping
100-to-1. ?Shooting on HD tape
was a very logical choice,? says
Chressanthis. ?We averaged five
hours of shooting per day, and
there was a day when I recorded
eight hours of material. It was a
huge job.?
Chressanthis shot with a Sony
900 series HD camera modified by
Clairmont Camera, the North
Hollywood rental house, which
also has offices in Vancouver and
Toronto. The modified camera
?addresses one of the critical
problems everyone is facing: back
focus,? explains Chressanthis.
?The Sony camera runs hot? and
the viewfinder doesn?t detect the
change of focus within the
camera, where the image focuses
on the CCD imaging device.
Clairmont ?put a hardened steel
mount on it, similar to film
cameras, which allows you to hold
focus.?
While Chressanthis recognizes the economic reasons for going to HD for this particular
project, he thinks he ?would have gotten higher quality and little more ease of camera
movement in Super 16. HD cameras are heavy and big. The 900 is twice the weight of
an Aaton.?
Cinematographer John Le Blanc is a recent migrant to HD, having shot only on film
from 1965 until last year. He recently used HD to acquire footage for a Sony
PlayStation game. ?It was the perfect application for HD,? he explains. ?It was a green
screen assignment that?s going to be plunked right into the game itself. It?s going to
stay in the digital world. I was able to set up my monitors and did my [in-camera color
calibration] right there. It was sort of like bringing your timer with you. Sometimes
people tell me I can fix it in telecine. I say, why don?t we fix it right now and then we
won?t have to save it in telecine.?
As with other DPs, the advantages of HD for Le Blanc include situations with a high
shooting ratio, and the fact that you don?t have to stop often to reload. ?If somebody
just wants to let the camera run, it?s perfect for that.? But there?s a flip side. ?The
editor now may take weeks and weeks to wade through the stuff - now you?re tying
up an editor.?
Similarly, while it?s good that with HD ?we can save money in film stock and
processing, we may have to add a day or two in our schedule because now we?re
lugging [more] stuff around. And you still need a gaffer and grip and the same amount
of camera guys. Where you save is in the fact that when you go to sleep at night you
know what [it looks like].?
ollow the Dollars
Perhaps no one in Hollywood is more enthusiastic about HD than Randall Dark,
president of HD Vision Studios, a company that provides a full spectrum of HD
production, post and rental services: ?I say use HD for everything, immediately. I say
that to anyone who comes through my door. The world is going digital, wide screen,
high resolution - period.?
Dark acknowledges that for huge features budgeted at, say, $150 million, the
percentage saved by shooting in HD is minimal. ?But if you?ve got a $3 million film,
the percent you save by not buying raw stock, processing it and transferring it jumps up
dramatically. To me, it?s follow the dollars.?
Those same dollars are also pushing episodic TV producers toward HD. ?Pilots are
being shot on 24p not because the directors and DPs want to use it. It?s the bean
counters who are making those decisions. It?s cost savings,? says Dark.
Vancouver-based cinematographer Scott Williams shot two seasons of PAX TV?s
Mysterious Ways, the first on 35mm, the second on HD. ?They decided to switch for
financial reasons,? he says. ?One of the producers told me they saved about $1 million
(Canadian) during the second season? because of the switch, ?although not a dime
trickled down to me.?
Adds Williams: ?At first I was completely bummed out: you know, video! I had an
elitist attitude toward it. But it was a very positive experience. There are some striking
advantages to shooting on that medium, and number one is the monitor. There?s less
guesswork.?
Another Vancouver-based cinematographer, Henry Chan, CSC, draws a careful
distinction between film and HD. ?You can?t compare HD to film. You can try to
make it look like film, but I don?t think it?s the right call. But the number-one
question is money, and that?s the producer?s call.?
And producers are opting for HD because ?most people find that at the end of the day
HD is cheaper,? says Tom ****inson, general manager of Burbank-based rental house
Bexel. ?But even though HD can save you money, it doesn?t save money line by line.
It?s more complicated than that. Renting the camera actually costs more than film, but
you save on processing.
?With HD you also have the ability to look at high-quality images right then and
there, so you can make decisions and start shooting minutes later. You have to factor
that in too. However, you may be giving up familiarity and a comfort level with film?s
workflow, and it can be difficult to bring a film production team into an HD
environment.?
****inson adds that the level of sophistication about HD has risen greatly. No longer
does Bexel get questions from producers about whether or not to shoot on HD. Rather,
they ask about different options for HD cameras and lenses. As for feature producers,
they?re more likely to go HD if below-the-line costs are a significant portion of the
budget. ?One of the reasons you?re not seeing more HD in the bigger budgets is
because even though money is a key motivator, HD is only a below-the-line savings.?
The exception: George Lucas. He is ?primarily oriented to special effects, working in
the computerized world the majority of the time. He starts electronically, goes into
digital bits, putting stuff into workstations. HD lends itself to that.?
Then there?s the world of high-end TV commercials, which is also dominated by
35mm. According to Tom Fletcher of rental facility Fletcher Chicago, ad agencies ?are
behind the rest of the production community in embracing HD. Many have a toe in the
water, but that?s all. Most agencies won?t dictate what it will be shot on, leaving that
up to individual directors.
?We make presentations at agencies all the time and they have no idea that any film
other than Star Wars has been made electronically, or that any TV shows are shot on
HD. Most agency people are just not educated about it.? Fletcher goes so far as to
predict that ?some agency will lose an account because they?re unaware of what?s
going on with high definition, not only in acquisition, but also delivery of HD to the
home.?
Perhaps another reason Madison Avenue has been slowest to embrace HD is that
commercials are ephemeral. Cars change models, candy wrappers change appearance,
airlines disappear. In other words, the shelf life of a TV spot can be very short.
The opposite is true in TV entertainment, where vast riches have been made in
syndicated reruns, and in film, where DVD technology has given seemingly eternal life
to older movies. ?A big question is the evergreening of material for future use,? says
Bob Zahn, president of rental house BVR in New York. In TV production, HD is being
used by a growing number of producers - especially those who formerly shot on
standard def - to future-proof their programs.
But there are eternal truths that run even deeper than money. ?HD may be the hottest
thing in the industry right now,? says Zahn, ?but it?s a good story that will capture
[moviegoing] audiences.
?HD is the hottest thing in the industry - really the 24 frame rate is the hottest thing.
It?s attracting filmmakers who have shied away from video traditionally. Because of
this frame rate, and signal manipulation, you can closely replicate the look and feel of
film. But not exactly.?
