What's Digital Cinematography?


Digital cinematography is essentially filming motion pictures on digital video instead of film. This is certainly not a new concept: before it was re-packaged as "Filmlike" in the late 1990s it was known for many years as "Electronic Cinematography". Make sure you visit Vidize.com - a new site for video sharing, personal broadcasting and more.

Sony had been trying to market this concept using tube-based analog HDTV cameras since the late 1980s, with very little success. It was not until 1998 when they were able to introduce workable 1920 x 1080 pixel CCD cameras with attached HD Digital Betacam recorders that anybody began to take them seriously.

It is certainly true that lower-budget, non-cinema-release movies are increasingly being shot filmlike with digital video cameras (although not the high definition ones), but the preferred medium for that is still 16mm film.

Mini-DV

Mini-DV cameras have been around for many years and have been used on indie games and low-budget films, but are most popular with common consumers. There are too many models to list here but the Canon XL series is used frequently. It was used on Steven Soderbergh's Full Frontal, for example. It is important to understand that there are two components to this format: the camera and the recorder, and most of its limitations lie with the camera. Generally, the Mini-DV tape format is capable of recording considerably higher quality images that the attached compact cameras can produce.

One of the first Mini-DV cameras to be used on a feature film was the Sony VX-1000 (predecessor to Sony FX1)which was used to shoot Spike Lee's Bamboozled.

Thomson Viper

The Viper FilmStream Camera has the same resolution and frame rate as a high definition video camera like the CineAlta, but captures an uncompressed video image. (Many earlier model high-definition video cameras compress their images at least slightly.) It was used on Michael Mann's Collateral. The Viper can shoot in extremely low light levels, thus much of Collateral could be shot on the streets of Los Angeles in middle of the night without a lot of additional lighting equipment.

There is no tape format that can handle the data generated by the Viper camera, so images are usually recorded to a hard disk array. This allows the footage to be edited immediately after it has been shot. For this reason, director David Fincher used the Viper camera on a Hewlett-Packard commercial with complex visual effects.

Fincher later decided to use the Viper to shoot his entire next feature Zodiac. Michael Mann will also stoot his next feature Miami Vice on the Viper.

Note: In the prosumer class, Panasonic HVX200 records to P2 chips instead of tape to accommodate its 100Mbps data stream. All HDV cameras record to mini-dv tapes and as such are limited to 25Mbps.

Digital video vs. film

Some notable directors have stated that they have been "converted" to digital cinematography and will never return to using film. Some of them are George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, David Fincher, David Lynch, Lars von Trier, and James Cameron. However in a more recent interview Lucas modified his stance somewhat, to the effect that: he "would use whatever is more appropriate to the particular project."

Some of the alleged benefits of digital video are:

  • Digital video allows for films to be shot faster and cheaper
  • Digital video can be played back and edited immediately
  • Digital video can record image and audio on the same media
  • Digital video cameras are smaller than film cameras
  • Digital video is recorded on a cassette or hard drive device
  • Digital video is more sensitive than film (i.e. less lighting)

Most films are already edited on a digital system after the developed film stocks are converted to digital video. Film requires a lengthly telecine process to be converted to digital video.

However, after the intital flurry of interest, the use of digital video for motion pictures has caused a backlash among many film enthusiasts. The main argument against digital cinematography is simply that the image quality and 24 fps frame rate has not yet caught up to even run-of-the-mill 35mm film, and that films shot digitally have a cheaper look, or that the footage looks too crisp and "washed over".

Generally, the problem is that despite being re-labelled "Digital Cinematography" cameras, they are still television cameras, and retain all the limitations of television cameras. TV cameras work satisfactorily in totally enclosed sound stages (or TV studios) where there is 100% control of the lighting, which is how the vast majority of the Star Wars and Spy Kids films were shot. However, taken outside into "on location" situations where there is far less control over the lighting, video cameras tend to perform poorly. In this case, any potential savings in stock costs tend to be eaten up by the need for extra lighting equipment to "flatten" difficult lighting situations.

Other issues

Although it is true the "per minute stock cost" of videotape is much less than an equivalent amount of film, in most cases this is more than offset by the cost of the extra monitoring equipment required. In any event, even if the cost of shooting digitally could be reduced to zero, the overall effect on the cost of producing the average feature would be negligible, since film costs normally make up a tiny part of a film's budget. So currently even very cheap "made for cable" movies are nearly always shot on film.

The "instant playback" feature so often touted as a major advantage of shooting digitally, has been available through the "video assist" systems that have been in regular use since the early 1980s. Although this is only lower resolution NTSC video, for the vast majority of monitoring and framing "confidence" applications, it has proven more than adequate.

Credit: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia