Farcical techno-debates over 'professional quality'
The are times when the cinema and broadcast industries are truly absurd; when the people who work within these fields, and the institutions they work within, display attitudes and perspectives that are truly obnoxious.
The great and never ending debate that draws us all in with remarkable regularity is that over Quality, Image Fidelity, what is and is not acceptable, what is and is not viable for professional production.
This debate masquerades as being technical, of being concerned with scientific and mathematical detail, but in truth it is almost never anything to do with technology. The ever running quality debate that manifests as 420 vs 422, intra vs longGOP, film vs digital is nothing more than a thin veneer over a debate that is really cultural and psychological.
The debate that positions some cinema technologies as unworthy and others as superior is actually about those individuals and institutions expounding these distinctions to justify their own choices, their own decisions about their own work. It's techno-protectionism , an artificial premise to protect the status quo.
I find it difficult to see these ever present arbitrary distinctions between 'professional' and 'consumer' cinematic technologies as anything more than self-justification.
Much contemporary commercial advertising is built on the premise of justification rather than promotion. Apple is good example - ads such as the infamous 'I'm a Mac' are far more about making existing Mac owners feel superior and justified in their choice than they are about convincing non Mac owners to jump ship. Prestige car manufacturers run a similar game, advertising to exiting owners to build brand loyalty as much if not more so than to attract new customers. More Public Relations than Advertising.
This notion taps into the psychological state humans fall into in self-validating their 'life' choices as consumers. Buy 'x' brand of car and all of a sudden you will see that brand of car everywhere. Buy 'x' brand of TV and your eye is drawn to every shop window displaying TV's to see if they have 'yours'. And its this last idea of 'yours' that is so crucial to advertising and brand building - personal investment.
This, it seems to me, is exactly where many of these farcical techno-debates of quality or professional vs consumer, arise.
Case in point...? HDV. Fact: currently the BBC considers HDV marginal for broadcast purpose. Marginal?
Below are stills from the very successful Australian independent feature film GABRIEL. Shot for a paltry $150,000 on a JVC101 HDV camera at 720p.
Marginal for broadcast? You have got to be f%#king kidding me? Gabriel is a film that looks absolutely fantastic, well lit, well shot, a great visual feel, high in visual detail and long on range in the image between light and dark. And I dont believe there is anyone other than a cinematographer who could differentiate any difference between the visuals of this film and anything 1080, 2k or 422 colour space. Indeed it would only be filmmaking professionals who would care.
So why the still ongoing bitchin' and moanin' about HDV inadequacies, motion artifacts, - complaints that now extend to XDCAMEX...? How can the complaints possibly be considered legitimate when you see a 720 long GOP 420 image look This Good, this detailed, this rich?
Is it really technical quality distinction? Or is it much more about personal validation and self justification? Is it more likely about the desperate attempt from those who feel threatened by a $150,000 feature that looks comparable as anything shot on equipment far more expensive.
Sometimes I find it hard to think beyond the idea that there's a whole lot of filmmakers in the world with small-penis syndrome - those who feel their professional manhood so under threat they need to draw a hard and arbitrary line in the sand to make themselves feel secure as big-dicked professionals....
Bravo! I couldn't agree with you more. This is a much needed kick in the ass of those who, as you say, feel "threatened" and need to nit-pick and patronize simply to push their own agenda. We had a bit of this crap last year in the machinima community with someone who wanted to create a "approved by XXXX" which would indicate that the machinima in question was up to "broadcast standards". Well, that fool is long gone now. But what surprised me were the amount of people willing to listen to his spiel of exclusivity.
What an excellent post. That you've added your aggravation makes it even more convincing.
Posted by
Ricky Grove
on May 16, 2008 at 01:55 AM EST
#
Thanks so much Ricky. Im half expecting the 'threatened' to stage a comments backlash on DigitalBasin, so pleased yours was the first.
Mike
Posted by
Mike Jones
on May 16, 2008 at 07:20 AM EST
#
Once again you hit the nail on the head.
The same ol bitchin about the fact that any content worthy to be broadcast has to be shot on (fill in blank) in order to meet some self imposed criteria.
What so many of the old school shooters (in the news end of things mind you) is that the web will be the destination for content - broadcast will have to fight like anyone else will for viewership. So I take my paltry HC7's out and shoot video journalistic and short doc assignments and edit in Vegas Pro. No fuss, no muss...
I don't know squat about the various sample rates - all I know is, HDV looks pretty damn good considering the size and cost of even the lower end cameras these days.
Bottom line is, as you have more or less pointed out - its the operator, not the equipment that dictates quality.
Posted by
Cliff Etzel
on May 16, 2008 at 09:05 AM EST
#
You see this sort of thing go around with editing too.
The real editor uses Avid in a suite, the amateur uses PPro/FCP/Vegas on a PC in the kitchen.
Well it is easy to go with the first when someone is willing to put up the $50K editing budget. When your whole production must be done for $5K...
Some times i think it is a self-justification for not doing anything. "If I can't get an Avid suite I don't want anything." Well good luck, and get out of the way so we can produce something.
(Whew... where are my tablets?)
Ciao,
marks
Posted by
mark stavar
on May 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM EST
#
First off, thanks for pointing out Gabriel as an encouraging reminder that great storytelling combined with creativity can always overcome so-called technological "limitations".
However, help me understand your post more. I'm not especially technically-minded myself (as hard as I may try). Does what you're saying also mean that "technical" issues such as 420 vs. 422 (vs 444?) color space are being overstated, even specifically in regards to compositing images - especially unique project ideas that would benefit from heavy blue/greenscreen production (ala Sin City, 300, Cloverfield, etc)? If so, I guess the marketers are doing their job, because the "need for deeper color space" was the message that seemed to come across while doing research. I know your post wasn't specifically referencing compositing-heavy movie-making, but I also know you have a special interest in the composited image - which is why I wanted to ask you. Sorry for the ignorance.
Great question Jim, "are tech limitations of 420 being overstated"...? well No and Yes...
The short answer is that 422 video signals have mathematically much more colour information and so any colour based process - chromakey, grading, visual fx etc - will Always look better and get better results from 422.
This is a simply a mathematical fact.
But.... The implication here, one that is pushed very hard by some manufacturers (and producers) is that subsequently 420 is therefore 'no good'.
Thats a bit like saying a BMW is a better car than a Ford and so the Ford must be 'no good'.
422 has a mathematical advantage but that does not mean that 420 is not viable. Gabriel in this case is an example of where not only has a superb looking film been produced from 420 source but that 420 has also been used for an fx heavy shoot - Garbriel uses huge amounts of greenscreen and heavy colour grading, CGI and vis fx. Yes, 422 might have been technically 'better' but to extend that idea to decree that 420 is 'no good' or 'terrible' or 'not viable'; just doesn't hold up when you look at the result on screen.
Therefore, I'd argue there is a lot of truth to the idea that the advantages of 422 are 'overstated'. Put a version of Gabriel shot 422 and Gabriel shot 420 side by side and I'd defy ANYONE to tell the difference.
What makes the image work is a DoP who knows how to work To the advantages of the format and circumvent its limitations - In the case of 720p HDV 420 Great lighting is the key, lots of light to give lots of post latitude. Likewise, the great result is also the work of post production supervisors who know how to get the most out of the 420.
Back to the cars; yes a BMW may be a 'better' (and more expensive) car than a Ford but that doesnt mean that the Ford wont absolutely do the job, be cheaper, take you everywhere you want to go and give you great performance?
Gabriel is a great example of not just using a low-cost acquisition format because the budget would stretch to one of higher cost; but rather of exploiting the benefits of that format and putting the money savings into other areas - sets, lighting, post, lenses etc.
Gabriel shot 422 would not under any circumstances been a better film, nor would it have been a better looking film.
And this, I would argue, goes for most low-cost productions that are currently being shot with 422. File sizes are near 4x times bigger, record times are much shorter to solid-state media, this adds greater handling management costs and time and for what gain....?
Dont get me wrong, if all other things were equal of course you would choose 422 over 420 (let alone uncompressed 444). But all things aren't equal. 420 is greatly more efficient, there's many more 420 cameras available than 422, record times are longer, storage costs are much lower.
If handled well you really arent trading off anywhere near what parts of the industry will have you believe. Gabriel, again is a prime example, it didnt trade off quality for its use of 420. And yet it gained the use of low-cost camera where the saved money cold be spent on great lenses, lighting and crew - three things that have a far greater impact on image quality than 420.
HTH
Mike
Posted by
Mike Jones
on May 22, 2008 at 04:32 PM EST
#
Wow,
Thank you very much for such a thorough response. That definitely helps me understand the issues in your post much more clearly. I'm gonna try and look through the techno-hype a little harder, now.
Now I've gotta go find a copy of Gabriel to buy or rent and study it so I can glean some more insight into the capabilities (rather than the limitations) of more affordable equipment.
Posted by
Mike Jones
on May 23, 2008 at 08:39 PM EST
#
Thanks for sharing this wonderful article with some great stuff.The digital world has made it possible for you to produce the very best absolutely most high quality photos all on your own.as far as technology goes, the rapidity of increasing developments is sure to create even higher quality digital cameras.
Posted by
jrose
on June 03, 2008 at 01:53 AM EST
#
What an excellent post. That you've added your aggravation makes it even more convincing.
Posted by Ricky Grove on May 16, 2008 at 01:55 AM EST #
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on May 16, 2008 at 07:20 AM EST #
The same ol bitchin about the fact that any content worthy to be broadcast has to be shot on (fill in blank) in order to meet some self imposed criteria.
What so many of the old school shooters (in the news end of things mind you) is that the web will be the destination for content - broadcast will have to fight like anyone else will for viewership. So I take my paltry HC7's out and shoot video journalistic and short doc assignments and edit in Vegas Pro. No fuss, no muss...
I don't know squat about the various sample rates - all I know is, HDV looks pretty damn good considering the size and cost of even the lower end cameras these days.
Bottom line is, as you have more or less pointed out - its the operator, not the equipment that dictates quality.
Why is that so hard for the detractors to get???
Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt | solovj.com
Posted by Cliff Etzel on May 16, 2008 at 09:05 AM EST #
The real editor uses Avid in a suite, the amateur uses PPro/FCP/Vegas on a PC in the kitchen.
Well it is easy to go with the first when someone is willing to put up the $50K editing budget. When your whole production must be done for $5K...
Some times i think it is a self-justification for not doing anything. "If I can't get an Avid suite I don't want anything." Well good luck, and get out of the way so we can produce something.
(Whew... where are my tablets?)
Ciao,
marks
Posted by mark stavar on May 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM EST #
However, help me understand your post more. I'm not especially technically-minded myself (as hard as I may try). Does what you're saying also mean that "technical" issues such as 420 vs. 422 (vs 444?) color space are being overstated, even specifically in regards to compositing images - especially unique project ideas that would benefit from heavy blue/greenscreen production (ala Sin City, 300, Cloverfield, etc)? If so, I guess the marketers are doing their job, because the "need for deeper color space" was the message that seemed to come across while doing research. I know your post wasn't specifically referencing compositing-heavy movie-making, but I also know you have a special interest in the composited image - which is why I wanted to ask you. Sorry for the ignorance.
Thanks
Posted by Jim on May 22, 2008 at 09:24 AM EST #
The short answer is that 422 video signals have mathematically much more colour information and so any colour based process - chromakey, grading, visual fx etc - will Always look better and get better results from 422.
This is a simply a mathematical fact.
But.... The implication here, one that is pushed very hard by some manufacturers (and producers) is that subsequently 420 is therefore 'no good'.
Thats a bit like saying a BMW is a better car than a Ford and so the Ford must be 'no good'.
422 has a mathematical advantage but that does not mean that 420 is not viable. Gabriel in this case is an example of where not only has a superb looking film been produced from 420 source but that 420 has also been used for an fx heavy shoot - Garbriel uses huge amounts of greenscreen and heavy colour grading, CGI and vis fx. Yes, 422 might have been technically 'better' but to extend that idea to decree that 420 is 'no good' or 'terrible' or 'not viable'; just doesn't hold up when you look at the result on screen.
Therefore, I'd argue there is a lot of truth to the idea that the advantages of 422 are 'overstated'. Put a version of Gabriel shot 422 and Gabriel shot 420 side by side and I'd defy ANYONE to tell the difference.
What makes the image work is a DoP who knows how to work To the advantages of the format and circumvent its limitations - In the case of 720p HDV 420 Great lighting is the key, lots of light to give lots of post latitude. Likewise, the great result is also the work of post production supervisors who know how to get the most out of the 420.
Back to the cars; yes a BMW may be a 'better' (and more expensive) car than a Ford but that doesnt mean that the Ford wont absolutely do the job, be cheaper, take you everywhere you want to go and give you great performance?
Gabriel is a great example of not just using a low-cost acquisition format because the budget would stretch to one of higher cost; but rather of exploiting the benefits of that format and putting the money savings into other areas - sets, lighting, post, lenses etc.
Gabriel shot 422 would not under any circumstances been a better film, nor would it have been a better looking film.
And this, I would argue, goes for most low-cost productions that are currently being shot with 422. File sizes are near 4x times bigger, record times are much shorter to solid-state media, this adds greater handling management costs and time and for what gain....?
Dont get me wrong, if all other things were equal of course you would choose 422 over 420 (let alone uncompressed 444). But all things aren't equal. 420 is greatly more efficient, there's many more 420 cameras available than 422, record times are longer, storage costs are much lower.
If handled well you really arent trading off anywhere near what parts of the industry will have you believe. Gabriel, again is a prime example, it didnt trade off quality for its use of 420. And yet it gained the use of low-cost camera where the saved money cold be spent on great lenses, lighting and crew - three things that have a far greater impact on image quality than 420.
HTH
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on May 22, 2008 at 04:32 PM EST #
Thank you very much for such a thorough response. That definitely helps me understand the issues in your post much more clearly. I'm gonna try and look through the techno-hype a little harder, now.
Now I've gotta go find a copy of Gabriel to buy or rent and study it so I can glean some more insight into the capabilities (rather than the limitations) of more affordable equipment.
Thanks again - and I love your blog!
Jim
Posted by Jim on May 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM EST #
M
Posted by Mike Jones on May 23, 2008 at 08:39 PM EST #
Posted by jrose on June 03, 2008 at 01:53 AM EST #