Hey guys.

Just wanted to get your thoughts regarding 24P and 60i, as well as HD vs DV. Do you think a production will be better if shot at 24P and with HD over DV and 60i? Although story is of course number 1, what aspects of shooting HD 24P do you think would make a movie better? (over DV) This is basically a debate between the technical aspects and aesthetics of these two mediums, and your input would be much appreciated. Is shooting HD 24P more effective in terms of storytelling and cineama? Please share any and all thoughts involving the differences in these two formats (HD & DV)
Thanks!

Well, the reasons most shoot HD is to create a piece that has the potential to compete in the big leauges (ie: against 35mm)

HD is the closest Video 35mm alternative, and has done fairly well considering "attack of the Clones" and "Spy Kids 2" DV just dosent have the resolution to compete when you blow it up.

The 24p versus 60i is similar. Film runs at 24fps, video records and plays at 29.97fps. The motion most associate with "film" is caused by the frames. It creates a slight blur on movment, and make sit a bit surreal. Video dosent have this. With the exception of a few HD cams, and the Panosonic AG-DVX100 cam, which does shoot 24p. Shooting 24p can help you sell your movie, because it looks more like a "film". That little Panosonic, when shot right, can pass as 16mm.

Now, here is something to consider. If you are shooting a movie, but dont plan for a theatrical release, and intend to finish in MiniDV, your probablly better off shooting it on the AG-DVX100, then you are on its much bigger brother, the Varricam HD. Here is a perfect example why...

THis pic is H.D. shot on the Varricam


This pic, is MiniDV via the AG-DVX100


Blow them up on a big screen, and youll see the difference in quality, but on the small screen, they are pretty damn close.

The AG-DVX100 cost less than $4,000 to own. The Varricam, the way it was on that shoot, with lenses, wave form monitor, to HD flat screen monitors, and cam, would run you about $125,000. You tell me if the difference is worth it, or not. For small screen, Id say no.

Granted, when you see your project shot in HD, projected in HD in a stadium theater, on the big screen, you are in heaven, but you have to be practical.

In closing 24p looks more movie like than 60i, so, for filmmaking, is better. HD is much greater than DV resolution wise, and is a good way to compete with 35mm, but for straight to video, might not be the practical choice. Hope this helps.
R. M.

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans

Thats a really good insight Tizzy, and I just want to add a few things for all to hear.

When your trying to choose an apropriate camera for your film production, you really need to look at yourself at where it is your at.
The HD cams sure do look sweet, but some newcomers worry too much about how their cams resolution matches up. If I had a small production with $100,000 to spend, i'd spend it on set design and a good cast/crew rather than purchase a new Viper camera for 75,000. Too many people think that their film might just get distributed, but it usually doesnt happen enough to justify spending so much on camera equipment everytime. Get used to a good minidv camera under 10,000 and I promise it'll serve you well. If your lucky what will happen is youll have your production be shown at a festival, someone might like it and either pay for your stuff to be re-shot on HD, or they'll up front give you a few picture deals.

The greatest thing about mini-dv and its miniscule price is that it can show the big shots that you've got tallent and know how to place the camera and tell a story. They usually understand most of us are on tight budgets and will forgive 1. cam resolution 2. camera work but not ever story or how your film flows.

Thats the way you need to look at mini-dv. It may not be the best but it's definatly good enough to show your talent with.

I dunno. I think if your all important story calls for 35mm (Which the majority still do), and you shoot it on MiniDV it would reflect poorly on your judgement as a director. Some might forgive it as an unfortunate budget constraint, but many won't. There are millions of wannabe filmmakers out there. There are thousands with talent and good stories. There are far fewer with the gusto to convert their stories and talents into a solid product that really shows potential. Those are the one's that'll stick out IMO.

To be honest I don't like the screen-grab comparison posted above. I do agree with the principal, but putting a wide, pro-misted HD still against a crisp Mini-DV close-up offers very little insight into anything. I have, however, seen formal tests that seem to confirm that high-end (Not DV) standard-def images hold their own against down-converted HD material.

Nota "Apple pies vs. Orange life-savers" Mono

Good lord, $125,000 dollars for an HD camera is the biggest waste of money known to filmkind. You can buy a used Arri IIC for about 5,000. Then you can use the other $120,000 on film, processing and editing. And your finished product will look much better than anything digital.

I wasnt ACTUALLY suggesting anyone buy an HD cam. Why would you? Youd rent it. Now the cost of renting one, compared to renting a 35mm camera is pretty close. The difference is the cost of "film". An HD 60 min tape costs about $90. How much does it cost to buy, and process an hour of 35mm color film print? ALOT more than $90.

I do agree with Nota on several points as well. I have tons of scripts, and concepts. Some short, some features, a nice mix. I can tell you, there are several (almost all the features in fact) that I absolutley would not shoot on DV. It would detract from the story i was trying to tell, and suck the marrow out of what otherwise (IMHO) would be a great film. These are films designed to compete in the big leagues.

Then again, I have a horror feature that I wouldnt consider shooting on film. Its perfect for being shot on MiniDV using the AG-DVX100, or better yet, its soon to be released older brother, with pro lenses. The story i have constructed, is a somewhat simple one. I dont think id want to shoot it on 35mm. That is to say, if someone came and said, "Heres the money IF you shoot 35mm" I would shoot a different script. This is a throw away. A movie designed to give me some experience, and maybe just a little cash in the end. Thats it.

Everything is relative. It all depends on what you want your product to do for you, and where you intend to take it. Considering the limited cost, I would shoot almost anything on HD, if someone let me use the camera for free. However, if I was in the same position with a 35mm cam, I would be much more selective due to film costs. HD is a nice bridge between the DV/film gap. As time goes by, it will close that gap even more. Eplore your options, and act accordingly.
R. Michael

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans