|
Next
Newsletter Previous
Newsletter
August
12 , 2004 Volume II, Issue
7
24p
HD Versus 35 MM - The Reel Pros and Cons of Each
There are enormous
advantages to shooting a film in 24p HD over 35 mm film,
and some key disadvantages. Producers should consider
both sides of the equation before selecting one medium
over the other.
Before discussing
the advantages and disadvantages, here's a brief description
of what 24p HD means.
What is 24p HD?
24p HD means footage
is shot in "High Definition" at a speed of
24 frames per second - the same speed film is generally
shot at. Because the film is shot at the same frame
rate as film, it doesn't have - in terms of motion -
a video or newsreel "look." Instead, from
a motion perspective, it looks like film.
What the "High
Definition" part of "HD" means is…well,
it means whatever each manufacturer says it means. Basically,
all HD means in theory is that the footage is shot at
a higher resolution than any other medium - higher than
mini-DV, higher than DVcam, higher even than digit-beta.
That higher resolution means that first, the footage
looks better (and, some would say, more like film) and
second, that it can be blown-up to film with better
results. But what Panasonic calls HD, for example, is
very different than what Sony calls HD. Bottom line
is, no matter what manufacturer's equipment is used,
given all other things equal, the higher the resolution
of the camera, the better quality the end result.
Advantages of
HD
So what are the
advantages of shooting on HD? First and foremost is
cost. An entire feature can be shot on HD tape for less
than $1500 in tape costs and with no additional film
processing costs. This is tens and possibly hundreds
of thousands of dollars less than the costs of film
and film processing associated with shooting on 35 mm.
Costs can also be
saved in post-production. HD footage can now be loaded
directly onto a MAC running Final Cut Pro and edited
at the 24p rate. To load 35 mm film into a MAC for editing
would require the raw film footage to be digitized,
which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
But cost is only
one advantage. Perhaps the biggest advantages to shooting
in HD are creative. For example, HD is WYSIWYG - which
stands for "What You See Is What You Get."
That means that on the set of an HD production, what
you see on the HD monitor is EXACTLY what you end up
with in the editing suite - same lighting, same colors,
same everything. This is very different than with film,
where most producers and directors on the set view a
scene on a VHS monitor, which is a poor representation
in terms of lighting and color of what the 35 mm camera
actually shoots. Simply put, WYSIWYG allows for unprecedented
control and monitoring of shoots.
Another advantage
is that, because everything shot on HD is "a print,"
all shot footage is usable in the editing suite. This
contrasts sharply with film, where any footage that
has not been printed (because of the high cost of printing
film) is not available in post. Thus, in HD, even a
bad take - that would never be printed were it shot
on film - may have a moment or two of usable footage.
These moments can make editing the project easier and
the quality of the finished project better.
Also, because HD
tape costs are negligible, producers and directors are
more inclined to "let the camera run" a little
longer during a scene. This may yield mostly garbage
in the editing suite, but it may also yield a few choice
moments that would never have been captured at all if
the production had been shot on film. These few choice
moments may elevate the overall quality of the project.
Disadvantages
of HD
There are three
key disadvantages to shooting on HD. First, in general,
a film shot on HD has less value in the foreign markets
than a film shot on 35 mm. How much less? That's difficult
to predict, and is changing all the time as HD becomes
more and more accepted in the marketplace. But it's
not unreasonable to figure that a film shot on HD is
worth from 5 to 20 percent less in the foreign markets
than a film shot on 35 mm. That 5 to 20 percent figure
may seem like it completely overshadows the money saved
by shooting on HD in the first place, but that view
neglects one very important point - saving money during
the production may make the difference between finishing
the film or not. And if the film's not finished, it
won't be sold for any amount of money.
The second disadvantage
to shooting on HD is that a 35 mm print of the final,
edited HD master may be needed both for some film festivals
and if the film ever gets theatrical release. This print
will generally cost $25,000 to $50,000 - a big chunk
of cash. But…most film festivals now accept and
screen digital copies of films and spending $25,000
to blow-up the HD master to film may not be hard to
swallow if the film is being blown-up because a distributor
has committed to releasing the film theatrically.
The third disadvantage
with HD - if you can call it a disadvantage - is that
HD does not look exactly like film. It doesn't look
like film in HD format and it doesn't look like film
even when it is blown-up to 35 mm. Does it look better?
Worse? That's a subjective thing. But for most people,
the warm texture of film is deeply imbedded in their
psyche, and HD never quite measures up. Even if it comes
darn close.
Conclusions
So which should
a producer choose, 35 mm or 24p HD? Often, there's no
choice - the lower, up-front production costs of shooting
on HD make it the only real option. But, if those lower,
up-front production costs aren't the deciding factor,
than consider this; for young filmmakers, who are making
their first or second film, the creative advantages
of shooting on HD may ultimately yield a better quality
product in the end. And that better quality may add
enough value to the film in the marketplace to make-up
for the lower foreign values of HD shot films. THE
END
Next
Newsletter Previous
Newsletter
|
