Film Festivals and Camera Choice
Posted 01 January 2008 - 09:15 PM
For my next project, I'm considering shooting HD. Renting a Varicam or maybe even a RED. But, I don't want to spend the money for an HD image, if it's going to be projected to look just like miniDV.
Are any festivals out there projecting HD?
What would the advantages be of shooting on a better camera? I'm sure there'd be a little more latitude, but is that all?
Thanks for your help.
I want to make a quality product, but not to spend money that doesn't get on the screen.
Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:36 AM
The other advantage you'd get with say a Red would be the 35mm sized sensor allowing for Depth of Field control and superior optics from PL mount lenses.
The same can be said of a varicam, although it does not have a 35mm sensor; it's performance would far out pace a dv camera.
Another good example would be DVDs; things you may have shot on miniDV or the like vs something shot in hollywood; both arriving on your screen via a dvd will look surprisingly different (the hollywood would look much better even if it was just a shot outside with no augmentation). While this is a result of many factors, one of them is the superior original format.
hope that helped!
Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:40 AM
Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:44 AM
For an example; take a still with say a camera phone and one with a normal camera (even a point and shoot) and resize the larger to that of the smaller, you'll see how although it's size has changed, and even if you convert it over to the same bit-depth as the camera phone, it is still a superior picture.
Posted 02 January 2008 - 10:52 AM
Thanks for your help.
Posted 02 January 2008 - 11:58 AM
Posted 02 January 2008 - 12:05 PM
All the bigger festivals can project on HD, but they prefer 35mm prints, especially if you originated on film. In Venice last year they projected some 65mm in 4K and in Cannes also they have a digital cinema setup for at least 2K.
I think you proved (to me anyway) shooting Anamorphic 35mm will totally kick ass V any digitally projected material, some of which originated on film.
Posted 02 January 2008 - 12:20 PM
Most festival prints are taken off the original negative so they will look much better than regular release prints that went through IP/IN stages.
Posted 02 January 2008 - 01:14 PM
Posted 03 January 2008 - 02:25 AM
Posted 03 January 2008 - 09:52 AM
Yep, saw 'I am Legend' yesterday, digitally projected at 2K and it even though it was shot on anamorphic, I didn't think it looked as sharp as a pure photochemical finish. And don't even get me started about the colors...
The thing is, all the vfx would have to have been done at 3.5-4k to match the sharpness of a pute photochemical finish, and therein lies the tradeoff - the vfx require much, much, much more detail to hold up to that extra bit of sharpness, and this is an extremely non-trivial thing for a huge project. It's not just twice as much detail, or twice as slow to render, it's 4x or much much slower (if it even renders at all!). So the tradeoff for projects like this is: slightly softer, but more ambitious images, or higher rez, but less ambitious images. You can't have both. Which would you choose? Because being sharper isn't *everything* - for the sake of getting the images you want on a vfx heavy project, you may have to take a hit on image sharpness...!
though I do agree, I tend not to love the look of 2k DI's so much. I wonder if it's more a matter of filmmakers getting a bit carried away with their new toys as much as anything else...
Posted 03 January 2008 - 12:45 PM
Posted 03 January 2008 - 12:46 PM
Posted 03 January 2008 - 01:06 PM
Its not the sharpness so much as the horrible flesh tones , why should anamorphic and then go to a 2k DI . I think its great for S16 and then release in 35mm but at the moment thats about it.
Well Max rightly mentioned sharpness too as a concern.
I think part of the problem doing a DI is just how is it is to go grade crazyee. (especially in a dark room, grading on a projector) Since your eye corrects the white balance for what you are seeing automatically, you can find that all of a sudden the whole image has gone *blue* and you hadn't even noticed it.
I've seen it happen a bunch of times, people go into the fancy new 2k DI suite and grade it to look "awesome", then they see it played back on a broadcast monitor the next day and go "what the fu** is this poop? Is this really what I graded? It's fu**ing SEPIA! Where have all the colours gone...!!!?"
So do you blame the DI, or the people doing it? It certainly gives you more control over the image...
Thats a big part of why shooting digital or doing DI are so popular with directors - they have MORE control over the images they create. Even if they have to take a quality hit to get it.
Same reason people often prefer to shoot on a sound stage instead of location. Or rear projection. Or green screen. It may look fake as all hell, but at least they have control over it, to create the images they want, to the limits of their taste and talent....