User:Fsostudentjdoe

Motion Picture Producers Transition from Film to Digital Formats

In 1997 when the Canon XL1 digital camcorder emerged on the market as a prosumer (professional/consumer hybrid) video camera alternative to film, the professional cinematographers and filmmakers did not initially take it seriously as a true competitor. ((http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/history/canon_story/digest/1997_2000_digest.html))

The various film emulsions, stock numbers, film formats (i.e. 35mm, Super 16, 16mm and 8mm), speeds, developing, processing and film transfers had, until then, given the impression that film was the more reliable format.

With questions about color tone, resolution, clarity and realism in the balance, the debate began between pixels vs. resolution. According to Shelly Weiner Grotta of ExtremeTech.com, although various digital format cameras can be compared against one another, when it comes to determining which format is better between film and digital, the answer is subjective. ((http://www.extremetech.com))

Veteran directors who spent their careers working with cinematographers and interpreting the look of a movie through the lens of the film camera found themselves digging their heels in deeper into their fight to keep film in the forefront as the true medium to use. Many record label executives resisted the possibility that this new format could provide a quality that the networks and video shows like MTV would accept for broadcast. This skepticism transferred over to commercial clients and filmmakers.

Independent filmmakers, intent on finding more budget conscious ways of producing projects, began to introduce credibility to digital cameras as legitimate professional production tools. By early 2002, when the early Canon’s and other digital cameras managed to work through some of the technical difficulties associated with the new format, the filmmakers began to use the cameras and editing technology for more than just low budget commercials and music videos.

As people became more intent on using digital formats for production, the move to develop greater quality increased and more competition emerged in terms of equipment and capabilities. The format high definition (HD) was borne of the opportunity to create a level of quality that would supplant film and compete on a financial level. The move proved to be at the forefront of the emergence of a new format that would completely change the way digital shooting would be viewed. An internet based website was launched by founder Mark Cuban, HDNet ((http://www.HDNet.com)) which allows visitors to view high definition content online. Thus, another trend began.

Previously, the comparisons made were between film and digital. This new introduction changed the game and the new comparisons were between HD and mini-DV or standard DV. Film began to shrink in the background and the sales charts told the story. Kodak ((http://www.kodak.com)) scrambled to develop new filmstocks to compete, and, when that strategy appeared to yield marginal results, the company began to develop video cameras of their own.

For the independent producers, the switch from film to digital resulted in massive cost savings for their clients and greater profits for themselves. When before, a film production budget included filmstock (multiple filmstock magazines), a film loader, development, processing, transfer fees and shipping. A digital production would reduce the cost of film tremendously. For example, one eleven minute magazine of 35mm filmstock would cost about $126 where, according to ProTape, a leading tape supplier, a one hour mini-DV tape would cost less than $10 and a one hour HD tape would be less than $20. Further, there would be no need for developing or processing the tape. The savings have allowed a multitude of independent filmmakers to emerge and begin to create their own projects, where, prior to the emergence of digital formats, they may never have entered the industry. ((http://www.pro-tape.com))

Although it is clear that digital is here to stay, one should not count film out at this point. The veteran filmmakers, cinematographers and producers still recognize the value of flexibility. When you’re shooting the Appalachian Mountains in the middle of a cloudy day and need to capture an eagle a thousand feet in the air, carrying a baby eagle, the long lens of a film camera might just be the best bet…

REFERENCES

Retrieved from the internet website of Canon, USA at ((http://www.canon.com/camera-	museum/history/canon_story/digest/1997_2000_ digest.html))

Retrieved from the internet website of Extreme Tech at ((http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,4351,00.asp))

Retrieved from the internet website of HDNet at ((http://www.hd.net))

Retrieved from the internet website of Kodak at ((http://www.kodak.com))

Retrieved from the internet at ((http://www.pro-tape.com))

EXTERNAL LINKS

((http://www.highdefforum.com))

((http://www.dga.org))

((http://www.panavision.com))

((http://www.vh1.com))

((http://www.jvc.com))

Blog: ((http://janedoesairblog.blogspot.com))

Profile: http://www.blogger.com/profile/04861768912576516899