HDV, Film and Me

Why HD Makes Film an UnDead Medium

These past few weeks I’ve been focused on two formats, HDV and film. What about HDCAM, DVCPRO and SD? I know what those do, what they look like, and exactly how they fit into my future. I’m less sure where HDV and film fit in.

I’ve been running some tests with the Sony HDR-FX1 HDV camcorder and the image quality is... well, read Erik Holsinger’s review on page 12 in this issue. Let me just say the HDV images are pretty impressive in some situations, less so in others. But I’ve never before shot HD footage for so little money.

As I write, the HDV editing story is still getting sorted out (see page 36 for more on that). A few NLEs work with HDV now, some plug-ins help others, and the rest should soon handle the format in one way or another. I’m using a beta update of one NLE that should be available by the time you read this. If everything goes according to plan, working with HDV will be a lot like working with DV25 footage: Transfer over FireWire, store on regular old hard drives, edit with the NLE of your choice. I’ve never before edited HD footage for so little money.

HDV will be a useful format for me. The real question is which clients and outlets will accept—and pay me for—HDV-originated imagery? I’m not yet sure.

That’s not a question I need to ask with film. Film does a good job creating the elusive "film look." But along with that sought-after look came "film expense" and "film hassle."

Film was just too expensive and too inconvenient for my typical budgets and deadlines. That may be changing. For a feature documentary, I’m about to run some tests on a few Kodak and Fuji 16mm film stocks. The footage I’ve seen in other films with the same stocks is very promising; these aren’t 1970s stocks.

The cost picture is changing, too. I can rent very nice Super 16 film camera packages for quite a bit less than HD packages, but those savings are lost on media costs. And processing costs are much higher; inserting a tape into a VTR isn’t nearly as expensive as sending film to a lab for processing and telecine, let alone scanning.

With a projected 30:1 shooting ratio, we’re talking less than two thousand for HD (and, by comparison, under $150 for HDV) but tens of thousands for film. However, as I talk to more people, both at facilities and those who have recently decided between film and HD, there may be ways to minimize, or even close the price gap. Even if there aren’t, when we’re talking about a six-figure budget, the cost delta is worth considering.

There are other factors. Some crews take film shoots more seriously. Film is also an established long-term archival media (not that I’m working on anything worth keeping for a generation). With film, there are no arguments about recording audio onto the imaging format. Film looks great.

Thanks HD

Ironically, I have HD to thank for making film an option. It’s definitely made Kodak and Fuji more responsive to the needs of the market. HD has made some labs more willing to reconsider their book rates. And HD makes a good poor-man’s intermediate format. I’m not going to be working with 4K scans any time soon, but film transferred to HD looks great and can be edited on a standard NLE.

The kicker? Film is now more within my reach than ever before, but the HD buzz may keep me from grabbing it. As I go looking for money, some funders get more excited about HD. That’s partly based on their perceptions of film budgets—you should see them salivate over HDV—but it’s also because some find HD sexier than film. And some prefer the look. Most DPs I know don’t feel that way, but like any good journalist or producer, I’ll follow the money. The project won’t suffer.

Film isn’t universally superior to HD. It’s just different. Film and all the HD formats, including HDV, let me do the same thing: tell stories in a manner an audience finds compelling and engaging. I’m just glad that HD has once again expanded my format options.

Write Jim at jfeeley@accessintel.com