The other day, the following question was posed. Two of our 'filmic' experts offered their opinions. We are also after a comment from Panavision and Sony Broadcast

The Question:

Can anyone offer an indication, educated guess or just an opinion on what percentage of TV drama shows (as against news, etc) here and overseas would be entirely filmed and produced in the digital environment? Like, does anyone still shoot these shows in 35 mm?Doctor Who? NCIS? Home and Away?

Comment #1 Mike Jones         (Filmmaker)

Mike

Comment #2 from Dr David Smith (Imaginaction)

Mike puts it really well but I have to say that there's one factor that working with (16mm) film taught me years ago and that's DISCIPLINE. The fact that so many dollars are cranking away at your ear means you really do plan things very carefully and shoot only when you're good and ready. The extreme of this would have to be shooting film for IMAX where the cost of film blasting through the mag can be really daunting

Translating to a short drama we're making at the moment, shooting with HDV, it's very easy to be a bit complacent with tape. There's more of a tendency to shoot from the hip, and a mindset of "we can fix it in post". I've been trying to help these young guys to shoot tape, but think film, if only because it might help them plan each shot meticulously and also save having too many choices when editing. I certainly love the freedom and quality of tape vs film and I also encourage them to go with good things that might happen on the set. But if you've got 35 takes...

Mike, you may disagree with this, but I think great scripting, careful planning and fastidious shooting make for a pretty good mix. I also totally agree that money spent on film is a complete waste of precious dollars that should go into all the things you mentioned - set, design, crew, actors etc.

David S

Comment #3 Mike Jones         (Filmmaker)

What throws a spanner in the works and make the argument a little more complex is that shooting RED digital is not necessarily cheaper if you dont plan correctly. Whilst you may save a heap on film stock and developing, you are - by virtue of the digital negative RAW format of RED - shifting a range processes from in-camera to the edit-suite. RED footage is all but useless straight of the mag; it requires a detailed and often times convoluted (especially if you're using RED in Final Cut) one-light and colour correction processes. not to mention massive transcoding times (since delivering in 4k is overkill and often useless you are inevitably down-converting to HD for delivery). So where some producers got caught out on their first RED shoots was having to spend on extra post-production hours they hadnt planned for sometimes amounting to more than they saved in film stock.

Whilst there is much discussion and hype around RED it should be remembered that there are host of other superb digital cinema cameras emerging. The SI2k (used on Slumdog Millionaire) has a very solid, efficient and reliable workflow using Cineform RAW. The Sony high end HD cameras F35 etc are rock solid and well proven in the field. And the bomb indie cinema tool i reckon thats a bout to make a big splash is the Ikonoscope. 16mm structure and gauge using the open Adobe DNG format. I think it's gonna blow minds when it lands. http://www.ikonoskop.com/

Comment #4 John Westwood         (aka Redgum - Redgum TV) 

Of course the whole technology argument is mute if the Producer is adequately trained with financial issues. To argue whether you use film or tape can be quite silly if, and this is usual, the Producer has acquired sponsorship or funding for a specific format (this is also common). I can't remember how many times I was sponsored by Kodak for film stock and processing.

It is not always the technology that drives a specific choice but in the case of Kodak product placement.
Teaching future filmmakers the art of fund raising (selling) seems to be uncool and to a degree a lost cause in many cases. That's a shame and that's why the majority fail. Yes Mike, I know AFTRS have made great in-roads into this area but other institutions lack any serious credibility.

ll I'm saying is that instead of having lengthy and sometimes fruitless debates over format (kids won't listen) let's raise the money to finance the project as it needs to be shot.

JW

 Comment #4 Ben (Biggles) Longden     (ENG Channel 9 / WIN News) 

Having a chat with colleagues at the Beeb regarding the directions in acquisition, the discussion  saw a move in two directions. The first was for news gathering (ENG) and  the other for  drama shot on location.

At one time in the not too distant past, everything shot for television outside was done on 16mm cine. The news,  as well as outside scenes in dramas. The indoor stuff was shot on the studio cameras and direct to two inch tape.

Fans of the old and ancient series of Dr Who will remember this visual disparity well when  the lead actors would be seen rushing to the Tardis (on 16mm) then burst through the door on the old BBC Television 4 sound stage.

As the electronics side of things made for smaller and more manageable cameras to be used in the field, somewhere around 1982 with Sony's Betacam, the whole world of field production for news and drama changed.

News directors were able to instantly slash their budgets without compromising staff, and at the same time dramatically reduce news production times and increase visual quality by working in a pure tape environment.

Gone was the huge cost of film stock, processors, maintainance and chemistry.  A Camera crew could come back from a job and have a story completed ready for broadcast in under half an hour for a breaking story.

Having the story on tape also meant it could be relayed back to the city  from country events and broadcast on the six pm bulletin that night. The news came to the country.

The drama productions were not really changed at the time, with many (now classic) shows still filmed either partially or entirely on 16mm.   The basic budget of a show was still the same, but the worlds economy was changing, along with that of television.

No longer were shows being made and produced by the big networks with deep pockets such as the BBC and ITV as well as their US counterparts but new independent film makers were coming along with marvelous stories to tell on the small screen. This meant their budget requirements were vastly different.

Unfortunately, electronic cameras were too expensive, so the old staple of 16mm had to be used, but as the price dropped, and availability increased, more drama work is moving to digital acquisition.

However, the look of celluloid has a distinct following, so much so that many producers simply want to replicate the look for their production

But the price of a 35mm or 16mm cine camera plus stock put the budget into the stratosphere so the digital video camera is being used simply by basic economics.

It's possible to buy hour long tapes for $40, and hire a decent broadcast camera with lens for under $500 a day.  A 35mm Arri without lens in Sydney is $2000 a day.

So what many producers are doing is renting seriously decent High Definition cameras and doing the shoots on that.

However, they are dramatically downgrading the image to somewhat match that of cine in terms of grain, resolution and contrast.  The advantage of broadcast video is that they can work with wide iris' to enable the shallow depth of field loved by the celluloid film maker.

So strangely enough, a new drama may be shot on HD, but the result out of the camera is distinctly lower definition. While the schoolyard arguments of which format is best is being slugged out, the use of interlaced or progressive frames needs to be seriously looked at by ACMA and FreeTV to come up with one common HD standard.

Stations are broadcasting in 720 interlaced, 720 progressive right up to 1080i on their HD channels. This needs to be seriously looked into, as the quality is going to inevitably vary, let alone the motion judder issues of shooting progressive. (Ever seen footy shot in progressive?  It's almost comical)

That aside, it makes a lot of sense to use digital video for drama and film making, as it enables the producer to have the money to put  just what they want in terms of actors, sets and locations in FRONT of the lens.

Footnote: We have received an email on behalf of Fujifilm saying they have NOT had any layoffs, and it was their opinion that many major films were still shot on film although they did say some were a film/digital combo.

By Various