Shooting Video vs. Film: Pros and Cons
"I mean, this whole digital revolution is really eroding the director's importance on a movie because, number one, just from a practical standpoint, with floppy disks and the ability to put all of the film onto a disk, more people have access to the movie."
---John Frankenheimer "In California, they don't throw their garbage away - they make it into TV shows."
---Woody Allen "You can get digital technology that almost is film quality, and go make little films and do everything you can to find a little understanding of your own voice and it will grow - Don't take no for an answer - Take every opportunity you can to do something."
---Jon Voight Ever since the first video cameras were made portable, the debate between shooting video or film has raged. At first, it was no contest. Video equipment was bulky, unreliable and its images flat and lifeless. By the 1980's, videotape cassettes made shooting television easier, but the images were still unable to touch film. Videotapes quickly degraded if copied or archived for long periods. With the advent of digital images, computers allowed video to compete with film. Here are some of the pros and cons: Video Pros 1) Video is cheap. Digital tapes run from anywhere from $6 to around $25 depending on the format. There's no developing cost and the camera can put time codes right on the tape. (See this website for some prices: http://www.tapeonline.com/digital-betacam.aspx) 2) Video is fast. Raw video footage can be immediately rewound and viewed. Unsure if you got the shot? Take two minutes to watch the take before you change the lighting set up. 3) Video is easier to light. Even if you screw up the lighting and make it too dark, some video cameras can compensate to an amazing degree. (Don't rely on the camera to fix your sloppy lighting. It's not like cruise control.) It's very handy to be able to shoot in low light conditions. 4) Video images are easier to manipulate. Using computer programs like Final Cut and Avid, you can actually alter parts of the images. For instance, in the horror movie I wrote the main action took place in a house. Once of the scenes took place a year before main character arrives and during that scene the editor made the house look like it was boarded up. Video Cons 1) Video isn't subtle. Video images tend to be all or nothing. Some cameras compensate so if you pan left or right, it doesn't even blur. It also tends to flatten everything on the screen. The technology has made tremendous strides in improving video's look, but it still has a ways to go. Video still doesn't deal with contrast very well. If you're shooting inside and someone opens the door to the bright sun, either the inside will look dark or the outside will look like a white haze. Modern video cameras are better at adjusting for this than the ones that came out in the 80's, but it's still a problem. 2) There are some technical hazards. Because video is so fast, cameramen and directors sometimes cut shots very close. If the take you need is at the end of a tape or at the end of when the cameraman shut off the camera, the signal can be degrade and some of the take maybe lost. These days, most video cameras have easy-to-work controls that keep the image even. Unfortunately, when you're using video cameras at film school people will adjust that control without knowing what they're doing. Sometimes what you see in the video camera doesn't always match up what's on your tape.
3) Video equipment is temperamental. You have to be careful with a video camera. It does not respond well to falls from any height or blows by blunt objects. If it breaks, you're going to need a computer technician to fix it. Take it from a guy that once dropped a $50,000 JVC video camera on the sidewalk because he didn't lock down his tripod. Ouch. Break a video cassette open and you have some real problems. The things are only made out of plastic. If you toss one to your editor in the editing room and it breaks, you're going to have to have the entire thing respooled onto a new cassette. Film Pros 1) Film is subtle. If you light and expose film correctly, you can achieve depths of field and great textures and colors on screen. In a way, cinematographers are "painting with light" when they light a film. 2) Film has history. Because you're shooting something on film, it has a certain validity in its look. You can achieve the look of famous films and there are many more movies shot on film than currently shot on video. 3) Film equipment is durable. You can drop a Bolex camera in the mud and it will probably still work. Some film cameras are wound instead of powered, so you don't need to charge a battery. I don't recommend you tie your Bolex to a rope and chuck it out the window on the end of a rope (as one student at my college did). However, if the Bolex does slip from your hand, there's a good chance it will still work as long as it didn't pop open or crack the lens. Also, when you're editing, you can actually touch the film. You don't want to scratch, but if you drop a piece of film on the floor and gently wipe off the dust with a cloth, it should be fine. 4) Shooting on film forces you to shoot economically. You have to know what you're doing when you are shooting film. You can't waste it and you can't keep the camera rolling for hours. Film Cons 1) Exposing film is complicated. You have to have your lighting set, your light meter read correctly and your camera set to the right aperture. Video cameras can sometimes compensate if you don't have gels handy, but film cameras do not. It's tough to get a really good image on film. 2) Film is costly. First, you have to buy the footage which starts around $15 and can go dozens of dollars a roll depending on the length and the kind of film you want. (Here's a site with prices: http://www.chamblesscineequip.com/catalog/film.htm) After you shoot it, you have to develop it and either transfer it to video to edit or get the film back, edit it, cut the negative and then send it back for processing. It can get very expensive, very fast and that doesn't even count the film you might waste or lose by accident. 3) Film stock is temperamental. The equipment may be durable, but the film sure isn't. If you accidentally expose your film, you're screwed. At the very least, you might be wasting raw stock. And while video tapes usually last hours, film stock lasts in increments of minutes. 4) Film is slow. After you shoot, you have to wait until the film is developed until you can view it and see if you got everything you need. The time it takes may be dependent upon your school, how quickly they develop film and how many other students are also shooting. If your school doesn't have any on sight facilities to develop your film, you may have to wait even longer. This can be a real problem if your lead actor grows a beard or your lead actress breaks up with you and you have to do some reshoots. Editing film by hand is an intimate, but time-consuming process. Although some people extol the virtues of cutting your film with your bare hands, sitting hunched over a flatbed editor for ten hours is pain, especially if everyone in your class has to use it too. So which is better? Well, film still looks better, but sadly as video becomes more sophisticated there will be few film schools that will have the luxury of shooting on film. The economic realities of shooting low budget movies are driving more and more film makers to high end video. The sophisticated editing techniques now available on a desktop computer have really made nonlinear editing very attractive. These days I say if you can do it, shoot on film and edit on video. Film vs. Digital by Ken Rockwell
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm Video vs. Film by Andrzej Magnuszewski
http://www.ifvchicago.com/aesthetics/a_article_030101.shtml Video Look vs. Film Look
http://www.sundancevideoonline.com/filmlook.html
| 
Benefits
