A Saucerful of Secrets

A discussion of the merits of shooting on High Definition Video (24p), or film negative.
By Ben Bannister

Technorati Tags: HD

“While everyone agrees that progressive scan is a worthwhile goal…back in 1993…at the Cape Cod conference, advocates of 1080 interlaced standard for HD video went so far as to declare that progressive-scan HD was impossible.”
ACM, Vol.81, No.4, April 2000

“I think I can safely say that I will probably never shoot another film on film”
George Lucas, NAB, 22 April 2001

“Arricam. For the Digital Age of Film.
Arricam is a new image acquisition system for the changing world of Cinematography. It integrates the unquestionable image superiority of film into the efficient and creative world of digital post…”
Arri, advertising literature for 2002 release of their latest 35mm sound production camera body. 2002

“Digital HD isn’t the future of filmmaking, it’s the now. It has quietly arrived and it’s here to stay. I don’t think everyone realises this yet. But as soon as you bring an HD camera to your set, it’s over; you’ll never go back to film.”
Robert Rodriguez, Independent filmmaker, November 2002

Introduction:

Currently we are in the middle of the perennial debate over whether film is about to be superseded by the latest hybrid video format – High Definition video, (HD). Siren voices predict the end of film negative, as the media of choice for high-end productions – be they feature films, commercials, TV dramas, sports shows, natural history or concert footage. In the near future, so we are told, progressive scan, (24p) will replace even Super 35mm & anamorphic 35mm.

However, the end of film has been predicted almost since the advent of mass television production in 1950s. Yet, film negative, be it 16mm or 35mm resolutely refuses to bow to the seemingly inevitable. How can, an essentially, mechanical and chemical process retain such longevity in the face of the revolution in electronics? If film is in its’ death throes how does one explain the fact that Arri Corporation have developed and released a brand new 35mm production film camera, (that retails at an astonishing £200,000.00.)

Perhaps this is the wrong question? Perhaps the debate over HD vs. film negative approaches the issue incorrectly? Should the debate be seen as a battle between these two media or should we approach this debate from a somewhat more relaxed perspective?

I think that the problem with the current debate is that those who are driving it come from fairly entrenched positions; with vested interests and agendas that translate into millions of dollars worth of capital equipment, investments and future business. It is no surprise to read the current Kodak advertising campaign copy, “KODAK PASSION, the greatest stars know how to make love to the camera – only film knows how to love them back. Choose your origination medium wisely.” Clearly, Kodak are at the coal face, in terms of the threat posed by the digital revolution – not only in terms of shooting stock, but print stock and finally bulk print for cinema exhibition.

The reverse, of course, is the position Sony, (Canon, Fuji et al), adopt. They have clearly invested millions in HD and want the new format to take off to recoup their vast investments to date. As early as 1992 Sony and Columbia Pictures picked up the Rodriquez low budget independent feature film “El Mariachi”, which he shot on digital video for $7,000.00, and paid for the 35mm blow-up for cinema.

“El Mariachi” became a publicity vehicle for digital filmmaking, which is presumably why Sony invested so much in a small indie picture, directed by a complete unknown. Rodriguez is one of the leading apostles for digital filmmaking and more recently HD itself.
However, perhaps even his approach is too antagonistic. The debate should be approached somewhat differently. Rather than which is better, HD or film negative, perhaps the problems should be addressed project by project. Much in the same way that every director, producer, editor, DP and production designer approaches every project with a clean sheet and in the pre-production process addresses all the issues that will go towards achieving the desired end. There is no blue print for making films. In my opinion, the same applies to the HD versus film negative debate.

As producer Andrew Holmes put it, “…it is not a question of which is better per se. It is a question of which is best for what you are trying to achieve on any given project. There are pros and cons attached to all media.” He feels there is a lot of confusion within the debate that is unhelpful. The problem with HD is that it is not treated with enough respect. It is seen in terms of an alternative to either video or film. It is neither. It is totally different. It is totally new. It is an exciting new medium available to filmmakers all over the world. It increases the arsenal of creative tools available to filmmakers. In the words of DP Hiro Narita, ASC, “…the format is just a tool, and once you choose a tool, you shouldn’t be afraid of it.” HD should be addressed in those terms rather than simplistically describing HD as “better,” or lacking “the nuances… richness and depth” associated with film negative.

The debate is further confused by the lack of knowledge about HD. Much of the debate is based on a profound ignorance of the medium rather than an opinion reached from informed choices. What I intend to try and do is describe the merits of both film negative and HD. I intend to outline the pros and cons, not of 35mm as opposed to HD, rather the pros and cons within each medium. It is not a question of HD is better (or worse) than film negative. It is a question of knowing each medium and then applying that to each project individually and choosing which media will be best for the specific job in hand.

After outlining the positives and negatives, I will outline some facts, figures and myths about the two media, which I hope will act as a future check list – essentially a guide to help disseminate through the conflicting arguments.

35mm Film Negative:

This requires little introduction. Most of us are familiar with 35mm and are aware of its’ strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, here are, what I consider the primary pros and cons of 35mm film:

The Good:

• The quality of 35mm is unquestioned. In the words of our friends at Kodak, “Either way, film is the most flexible medium there is, from capture to post and beyond. Authentic dynamic motion, more raw information, and a natural depth of field…”

• Everyone who works in the film industry is au fait with film negative, understands how it works, what is required to shoot, edit and finish on film. It is a known quality. The expertise required to maximise the benefits of film exists from Producers & Directors, through to DoPs, 1st ACs, Lab technicians, Editors, telecine operators, negative cutters etc.

• Film has benefited from 107 years of development, both in terms of plant equipment, but also equally important – individual’s experience and expertise.

• There is an abundance of talent. A director or producer is not prescribed by the technology as to whom they work with. (To elaborate; filmmaking is not about having people around who know how to use equipment. That is taken as a given. A director and/or producer work with a DP or an Editor or a Production Designer, not because they can expose a roll of 5274, or operate an Avid, or draw and draft the plans for a set. These are, quite rightly, assumed to be the case. We work with certain individuals because of their creativity, character, integrity etc. The great problem with new technology, especially in its’ infancy, is that many people simply will not have had a chance to work with it and therefore gather the necessary expertise.)

• Film equipment is widely available, has a vast inventory of cameras, lenses & lens support.

• Film equipment is incredibly robust. There is not a corner of the globe that you cannot take film equipment to and use it with relative ease.

• Currently, cinemas can only run 35mm married print for theatrical release.

• Film photographic techniques remain unsurpassed – be it shooting high & ultra high speed, (<30-2000fps), under cranking, (>24fps), reduced shutter angles, double exposing, speed ramping, stop frame animation, time-lapse, manipulation of depth of field, filtration etc.

The Bad & the Ugly:

• Film is incredibly expensive. 400’of film, which translates to little more than four and half minutes of footage, will cost almost £200.00 to purchase & develop.

• Apart from the specially designed 2000’ Panavision magazines, (for US TV show “Friends”), the longest standard length of 35mm magazine is 1,000’, (just over 11 minutes running time.) Cameras running out of film, re-loading etc. is time lost. And depending on the subject matter can mean the “moment” is lost.

• Film requires an incredibly labour intensive unit to work it.

• Film is slow to work with. There is simply only a certain number of set ups that can be physically achieved in any day’s shoot. (If you can shoot more than 25/day and it still looks good you are very clever!)

• Film requires a huge amount of artificial light.

• Film is heavy – from the stock itself through to the equipment. (Andrew Holmes worked out that for a pan-European feature production to shoot on 35mm as opposed to HD was going to increase his transport weight by 900kgs. The production was to shoot in 7 European countries, shooting and travelling as they went. This translated into an enormous amount of additional expense and inconvenience. The weight of cameras has a direct bearing on the grips & crane packages, number of personnel required, steadicam etc.)

• You have to wait 24hrs. before you know what you have got. The notion (and reality) of “dailies” or “rushes” is extraordinarily archaic.

• Film is open to a multitude of potential technical problems, from over and under exposure, fogging, focus problems, hairs in the gate etc.

• Film is not an international standard. European TV shoots at 25fps, US TV at 24 or 30fps and 24fps for cinema release. (This has a knock-on effect as regards shutter angles.)

• The process of making film for theatrical exhibition is expensive, time consuming, open to a host of problems, (especially with opticals and titling) and every time a married print is run it depreciates in quality.

• If you are shooting sync. sound, a separate department is required, with yet more equipment etc.

High Definition Video, (24p):

The advocates of HD are growing and include some pretty formidable people – George Lucas, James Cameron, Robert Rodriguez, Wim Wenders, Michael Mann, Allen Daviau ASC, John Bailey ASC, Hiro Narita ASC, to name but a few. Although, these names are associated with feature film production, the success of the project “Dreams” organised by New York based advertising agency, Young & Rubicam, suggests that there is a shift towards HD and its’ inherent benefits by the commercial film production community.

As commercials director, Bob Giraldi, who contributed a film to “Dreams,” put it, when asked whether he thought HD would become prevalent in commercials,

“Yes, absolutely, without question. It will be because it’s new and we’re in a commercial business of people dying to be new, to be the first with the new, show the new, try the new.”

Likewise, high end TV drama and comedy shows are turning to HD because it retains the quality threshold necessary, while reducing the overall costs significantly. To put it in perspective, “Friends” is shot with a 4-6 Panavision 35mm camera package. Most of the cameras are running 2000’ magazines. If they were to switch to HD, the saving on stock and processing costs alone would be significant. Furthermore, as the team hits speed, the last thing the actors and director want, is to hear the camera department scream, “reload”! (Lucas Films said that they believed that they saved somewhere in the region of $15 million in stock and processing costs alone by shooting “The Attack of the Clones” on HD rather than film.)

More and more US TV shows, once shot exclusively on 35mm are moving towards HD for this very reason. The other benefits, beyond budgetary concerns, include the fact that 24p is an international standard. As more and more high end TV is co-produced, to be syndicated across the world, a single format is essential. In fact international co-production involving US giants HBO and Paramount require producers to shoot HD because of US transmission issues. “Anybody who wants a programme on NBC has to deliver on HD.” The same will surely apply to global advertising films that are to be run on say US, UK, Japanese & European TV, as well as mastering for international cinema exhibition.

Other “genres” such as multi-camera concert films, (e.g. Robbie Williams’ Albert Hall Concert), and natural history filmmakers see the inherent utility of HD. With tape running times of anywhere up to 50 minutes depending on the “frame” rate the camera is shooting at, stock and processing costs are brought down dramatically and the danger of loosing the “moment” are greatly reduced.

Finally, working from a digital source material means the integration of post effects and CG is seamless and a great deal easier.

However, everything, of course, depends upon whether you think the HD image is as strong as the image created by film negative. I don’t think that there is a definitive answer. It is in the eye of the beholder and hence the filmmaker has to come to a personal decision. For Giraldi, 24p is on par with film,

“It’s almost as though film married tape and they went off and had some children and now we’re beginning to hang out with their children.”

And perhaps this is the crucial fact about understanding HD. It remains in its’ infancy. As the quote at the start suggests, 10 years ago many predicted progressive scan was impossible. It was achieved in less than a decade. There is an immense amount of uncharted territory. This shouldn’t be taken as a negative. With the companies that are behind the push to HD, HD is not going to go away. Rather it will continue to evolve rapidly. When I shot HD, I off- and on-lined on Sony’s Xpri non-linear editing system, software version 1. In the 15 months that have elapsed since then, we are already on Xpri software version 5. I am amazed at how responsive Sony and others are being to the demands of those who are using HD. They are keen for feedback and do try and implement much of what they hear from the field. This is in stark contrast to Arri and particularly Panavision.

Perhaps Robert Rodriguez puts it most succinctly when he says,

“HD is in its’ infancy. This is the worst it will look. I can’t wait for the next generation.”

The Good:

• The quality of HD 24p is fantastic. 24p integrates with 24fps seamlessly, requiring no interpolation.

• Because of progressive scan as opposed to interlaced image construction, the image is incredibly sharp. (Focus Pullers beware!!)

• It is significantly cheaper than film, while retaining a quality threshold that digital formats up until now simply did not have. Glenn Estersohn estimates that the media save of HD compared to 35mm is 98%.

• What you see is what you get. This does not mean you do not need to secondary grade, or grade the inter-negative for 35mm cinema print. However, lighting and watching the on-set monitors has meant there is less chance of technical error. There is no 24hr wait for rushes clearance.

• The consensus is that for a variety of reasons one can move faster when shooting HD. Lucas averaged 37 set-ups/ day on “Attack of the Clones” as opposed to 26 on his previous “Star Wars” film.

• The one technical advantage HD definitely has over film is night shooting. HD definitely requires significantly less light. Andrew Holmes said that on his HD feature “Ashes and Sand” apart from a little fill on the principals faces, all the night shooting was done with available light. (www.ashesandsand.com)

• The back up and support offered by HD manufacturers and rental companies is second to none. Testing and training is positively encouraged at no extra cost.

• The cameras have memory sticks, (for colour tones, ASA ratings, contrast/gamma etc.) which can be set up during pre-production. If cameras go down the sticks are simply put into the replacement body.

• The cameras do have synthetic “in camera effects” such as high speed, (up to the equivalent of 60fps) reduced shutter angles, exposure settings, NDs, 85 & 81 filters and Diffusion. (Though the consensus is shoot clean and diffuse in post.)

• Conventional filtration can be integrated with HD.

• Though testing is essential and HD should be approached as a totally new tool, lighting is lighting and DPs will not have to re-learn their art.

• The new technology does not freeze out those who have not worked on it before. In the same way as editors had to take on board the advent of Avid, the same is true of HD. However, in a relatively short period Avid became an industry accepted standard. The Avid DS system integrates fully with HD – by March 2002 Avid estimated that it had sold over 100 Avid DS-HD systems in Europe.

• EDLs from existing non-linear editing systems can be read by HD systems such as Xpri. In the case of “Ashes & Sand”, the HD rushes were down converted or transferred, in their case to Beta SP, by the editor. He cut conventionally on his Avid, then conforming on HD online equipment from the Avid EDL. Andrew Holmes said the HD master tapes left the vault once, after arriving from the shoot, for the online conform. All CGI work was made off cloned tapes from the masters. The idea that negative would leave the vault only once is inconceivable.

• Opticals, CG, matte work, titling on HD has none of the inherent problems and generation loss associated with film opticals.

• Because progressive scan captures each frame completely rather than each frame being made up of two sets of lines (interlacing), mastering to 35mm cinema negative and then print is straightforward and of exceptional quality.

• Because of the ease associated with non-linear digital editing, on-line and finishing to whatever format, (especially for theatrical release), is, in the words of Andrew Holmes, “profoundly easier and quicker.”

• The range of camera bodies, zoom lenses, 35mm lens converters, HD primes is growing and growing fast. (For focal lens conversion, multiply HD focal lengths x2.5 to equate with 35mm spherical lens focal lengths. Hence a Zeiss 24mm spherical prime would be the equivalent to a 60mm HD lens.)

• There is an almost imperceptible difference in quality between an HD zoom and prime.

• Sony’s HD cameras are packaged in essentially the same housing as their Beta SP & Digi-Beta cameras. They have been all around the world in the toughest conditions. The notion that HD equipment is not as rigorous as film equipment is more myth than reality. Optex Ltd., are shooting an HD feature in sub-Saharan Africa, Lucas shot 65 days consecutively in 5 countries. Neither have had any technical problems associated with shooting on location.

The Bad:

• Outside of USA, the choice and availability of equipment both in terms of production and post is limited.

• Digital projection is still a way off. Despite rumours that Technicolor & THX are about to outfit over 1,000 US theatres with digital projection, widespread digital projection in Europe is several years away.

• It is generally agreed that HD is rated at 320ASA. This means, with the exception of night shooting, similar lighting budgets and crew is required.

• Back focus has to be checked regularly. There is some debate that changes in temperature has a noticeable effect. If back focus is incorrect focus will be out.

• The B&W eyepiece is far from satisfactory. Likewise it’s orientation. In the words of one Director/DP it makes you a “slave to the monitor.”

• The on-set monitors are likewise unsatisfactory. The standard being 20”. They could do with being larger and easier to wield around. This may not appear an issue, however, given the fact that the monitor has a far greater role in HD then playback monitors do with film, this is problematic.

& The Ugly:

• HD does not handle overexposure and hot areas well. Once you hit white all the information is gone – there is no bringing it back. Strong highlights and contrast are a problem. Balancing say an exterior with an interior can be tricky. It seems to be closer to reversal film than negative. It simply does not have the exposure latitude that negative possesses. This is definitely an area where testing, experience and a thought process that is exclusively HD’s are required.

• HD lenses, (because of 2/3” chip) has an inherently deep depth of field. To manipulate depth of field is harder, often requiring significantly longer lenses and less aperture to achieve a similar focus fall off as with 35mm lenses.

• Personally, I do not believe that HD synthetic shutter and high speed (up to 60fps) looks or feels the same as what is achieved with film. Certainly beyond 50-60i, there is no comparison.

• Despite what we are told, HD is not a global standard. There are several rates; 23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p, 30p, 50i, 59.94i & 60i. Each is region specific and better at one thing rather than another. It is an absolute minefield without a straight answer in sight. Hence, it is essential to do all the necessary research prior to production – as to the look you are trying to achieve, the format best suited for wherever transmission or exhibition is taking place.

Facts, Figures & Myth:

• For the latest HD propaganda visit HYPERLINK “http://www.sony.com/production” www.sony.com/production. There are some excellent articles, interviews & tech. specs. on HD.

• The HD format delivers 1080V by 1920H pixels per frame. (Each frame is made up from approximately 2.2 million pixels.)

• Thompson’s new Viper FilmStream Camera, designed specifically for high-end motion picture, episodic & commercial production captures 27.6 million pixels via 3 x 9.2 megapixel CCDs.

• Sony HDW-F900 camera, specifically designed as an alternative to 35mm film production, supports all progressive and interlace rates, can shoot animation & time-lapse.

• Sony HDW-750/730 camcorder has a video “cache”, recording up to 8 seconds in memory before the run button is pressed. This is especially effective for natural history production.

• HD take up is not simply production driven. As HD transmission increases, in especially US, Japan & Australia, mastering to HD is increasingly demanded.

• Practically speaking “gain” is HD’s equivalent of increasing film speed. (Much in the same way as image quality can deteriorate with higher ASA stock, gain can introduce electronic noise.)

• Down convert HD footage to digi & beta SP and offline conventionally.

• Running time of HD tape is 50minutes at 23.98p.

• HD stock is approx £40/tape.

• Always record sound separately, (on a digital format rather than 1/4”.) Use the onboard mics. for guide tracks thereby avoiding any syncing costs.

• Edit all opticals, effects CGI on the final online session. Final colour correction or grade the final on-line locked picture. If mastering to film print, grade inter-negative as well.

• HD camera packages are generally speaking more expensive than 35mm film camera packages, (Glenn Estersohn estimates anywhere between 9-15% more.)

• Rough cost for feature length HD to film transfer is £40K.

• HD has less exposure latitude; 4.5 under & 1.5 over.

• HD performs better to under exposure rather than over exposure. (The reverse is true of negative.)

It is myth that HD requires less crew. Hiro Narita, ASC, elaborates, “When filmmakers have the idea that it’s cheaper and faster to shoot in HD, the danger is attitudes will become cheap and fast too. There is almost no limit to how incredible a film you can make with HD, but the creators have to be vigilant.”

• It is myth that HD requires less light. (Use the same number and type as film.)

• HD is tungsten balanced.

• The new Canon HD prime lens set comprises; 5mm T1.7 CF1’6”, 9mm T1.5 CF 1’6”, 14mm T1.5 CF1’4”, 24mm T1.5 CF 1’6” & 35mm T1.5 CF1’8”. www.canon.com/cinematography
• (This roughly equates to 12mm, 24mm, 35mm, 60mm & 90mm spherical 35mm lens set.)

• Zeiss & Fujinon, (www.fujinon.com) have released HD digi-prime lens sets.

• Optex Ltd., HYPERLINK “http://www.optexint.com” www.optexint.com, 020 8441 2199, are one of the leaders in the HD field in UK. Their inventory of HD cameras & lenses is about the biggest. Their support and innovation excellent. (So, sadly are their invoices.)

• Arri Media & Panavision UK both carry their versions of Sony’s Cine Alta 24p camera system. (As do an increasing number of film camera rental houses; 186 etc.

• When using cine lenses with HD cameras, the camera requires an additional board to invert the image.

• Amphibico Inc. have designed an underwater housing for the Sony HDW-F900 & 700A HD/24p camera bodies. (www.amphibico.com)

• VTR, the Farm’s subsidiary Home, the Mill, Framestore, On Sight, St. Anne’s Post, Mac Million, all carry HD post capability from decks to Xpris to Avid DS, to Spirit & C-reality HD telecine suites.

• Cinesite is Kodak’s digital film mastering company, based in Hollywood & London. Computer Film Company is another London based digital film mastering company.

• A digital film master can be outputted to three formats; film, video and digital cinema.

• Film: make either an inter-negative or inter-positive, from which bulk prints can be mastered.

• Any video format, (HD, SD, DVD) can be created from digital film master.

• 24P playback source can be created for any digital projection format.

A Quick Guide to the Frame Rate Debate*:

Recording Mode, Rate or “speed“: Advantage/ Region/ Format

23.98P: When 1 to 1 frame relationship to film is desired, and a standard definition, (SD), output is required at the same time.

24P: When 1 to 1 frame relationship with film is needed, but a SD output is not required.

25P: In many PAL countries, film is recorded at 25fps. By running at 25P a 1 to 1 relationship to 25fps can be established and a 50-field PAL SD output can be obtained.

29.97P: If a program is being created in Progressive scan mode, where better temporal resolution is desired, this mode should be used. 29.97P will allow a 480i SD output. 30P will not.

30P: Mode for most USTV.

50i (Interlace): A program created for PAL distribution, where better temporal resolution is important – use 50i.

59.94i: To create a program for broadcast in the US for both HD & NTSC output.

60i: For US HDTV only.

*The Author does not claim that this is definitive or 100% accurate. Please let him know of inaccuracies or if you find anyone from Sony to infinity and beyond who does know all the answers!