Filmmaking for Cheap; The Digital Video Revolution

Back in the late 1990s, prestigious motion picture trade journals such as American Cinematographer were sounding off about the future of film-was it in danger? Would the more flexible and easy-to-use digital video format take over? Zounds! To many people, these fears seem a tad strange-but that's because they don't realize that the very look of our films was in stake.

The computer revolution has been in full swing for going on forty years, depending on how and what you count. Point is, once we developed the microchip, those government rooms full of punchcards and giant computers disappeared and slowly, slowly, we got personal computers, Xboxes, and iPhones. Point is, practically every industry has been transformed by the digital age. Graphic designers used to slave over proofs armed with rubber cement and drafting film; now all the editing is done via Photoshop or a page layout program. Film editing used to be done by physically cutting frames of the physical media and rearranging them; now software allows any starving artist to apply effects that would have taken a skilled person days of work and years of experience.

But that's the issue: while much of the film industry has been revolutionized by computers, it's still very much a big business. Film cameras are heavy and expensive. We're talking hundreds to thousands of dollars for just the camera lens. All those computer-generated images from the latest blockbuster still end up back on film reels distributed to your local cinema. The barrier for entry has been very high; the equipment cost a fortune, and even what equipment an aspiring filmmaker could get his hands on often looked like chickenscratch.

The advent of digital video, however, has finally started to change that. A number of new developments and the continuing pace of faster, better, and cheaper electronics, combined with the power of the internet as a soapbox and promotional platform, means that the age of the indie film may truly be at hand.

How'd we get to this point, anyhow? Let's start by tracing the path of the digital camcorder. Back in the 1980s, the digital craze was in full swing-we had digital synthesizers, digital audio mastering, new compact discs, and a battery of new digital equipment. It was also the point where professional video cameras became more portable and processing speedier, allowing the companies that used them (such as news organizations) to more rapidly output content. The same decade brought the proliferation of video cameras for the consumer market. Anyone who has seen films from that time know that you could never pass off a home movie as cinema. This is due to the fact that digital video, was for most of its life, an inferior format.

Like those that still clutch their vinyl records to their chest, or the photographer who still uses a dark room, much of the reasons why film has remained dominant is pure dominance and nostalgia. But film also has direct, tangible benefits. For one thing, 35mm film has a much higher resolution than standard definition video that we watch on our old screens. North American standard definition broadcasts a resolution of 720 by 480 lines at 30 frames a second. Notice how recently there's been lots of Blu-Ray releases of old movies? The reason that they can produce an excellent digital print at high definition-the highest being 1080p or a resolution of 1920 by 1080 lines scanned progressively-is because the film is a much higher quality and resolution. Instead of pixels of resolution, film is composed of grain-and you can blow a frame up to a very large resolution before detail is masked by the grain (note that this is dependent note only on the size of the film stock-35mm being the standard-but also the type of film stock used.)

But with the advent of high definition, the resolution isn't as big an issue. 1080p images produce crisp and highly-detailed images, enough that they can be used in comparable situations as film. Another deficit of digital video is that it has lesser tonal quality-highlights get blown out sooner, and high contrast situations are better handled by film. However digital has its own benefits, among them a generally better ability to resolve images at lower lighting levels; this cuts down on the big lights studios have to use, and thus portability.

The final issue is the perception of film itself. Most people have never really seen high resolution digital video done by professionals; some feel it looks eerily 'clean'. The reason that it looks so comparatively plasticky (and why most people don't notice) is because those digital prints are getting put on film, which adds in the characteristic grain of the medium. These days, however, film grain is easily added to shots in postproduction, and the characteristic motion of film can be emulated by cameras that record video at 24 frames a second-the standard running speed for film. So, in short: the differences between film and video have slowly been decreasing, to the point that its advantages often outweigh the benefits.

But this cost-benefit calculation doesn't just matter to studios. It matters to the people who can now pick up video cameras that record high definition video for just hundreds of dollars. If you want a good camera, it will only set you back around $1000--that's easily half the cost of an HD camera back in 2005. Even most entry-level video editing programs for your computer can handle and process that footage. That means that the difference between the equipment the movie studios use and what you can buy if you plunk down a reasonable amount of cash has vastly diminished.

The result is that independent films shot with a limited budget have a much bigger chance of taking off. If the technical know-how (how to light subjects, proper sound workflow) are addressed, then the actual hardware isn't that expensive. Furthermore, the rise of the internet has created a corresponding network of rookie cinematographers and gonzo filmmakers who swap secrets on how to make movies for cheap. Can't afford a $600 glidecam for smooth panning without a tripod? No problem; you can make your own stabilizer for $30, or your own steadicam for maybe double that. Rather than buy expensive adapters for lenses, you can make your own. Certain camera brands, for example the Canon HV20 and HV40, have spawned particularly loud and dedicated groups who mod better focus rings or give hints and tips on customizing exposure settings. The saying that "if you build it, they will come" has proven resoundingly true.

What does this mean, then? Will the studio system fall by the wayside? The answer is a clear no. Youtube has revolutionized media sharing and distribution, but it's no replacement for television. So too then, it's not likely that commercial filmmaking will die off, if only because it's a self-perpetuating money machine. But what does matter is that it's a brave new world for a student trying to make his or her own start in the business. As technology improves, film may well fall away and out of favor entirely-and a generation of kids raised on making home movies will step forth to create the next form of cinema.

Further reading:
*"Digital Sensor Is Said to Match Quality of Film", New York Times, 2002