Digital video a cheap shot for filmmakers

Digital video a cheap shot for filmmakers

Joko Anwar, Contributor, Jakarta

Celluloid film has long been regarded as the best medium for
feature films.

Made of colorless flammable material produced from
nitrocellulose and camphor, it gives most movies the look and
feel that we know today, which is close to the live images that
we see with our own eyes.

Some moviemakers daringly used video, with a resolution
nowhere near as good as celluloid but much cheaper, as an
alternative medium. Sometimes, the success of one such film
triggers a whole bunch of copycats.

The horror movie The Blair Witch Project in 1999, shot on low-
end video, created a big splash on the American film scene and
grossed more than US$200 million domestically.

Here, horror movie Jelangkung from 2001 is responsible for a
similar craze for films shot on video. Long lines were
commonplace at the limited number of theaters showing the film on
video projector (it was later transferred to 35 mm to gain a
wider screening).

But the film's success has been a curse for the local film
industry as it has been widely adopted as a cheap way to shoot a
movie, not because of the particular look it brings.

Blair is obviously a conceptual winner as it is supposed to be
taken from videotapes used by three students who disappeared in
the woods several years before.

The grainy and minimalist style the filmmakers sought was
fulfilled by the video medium.

Jelangkung's taking from this genre, however, was purely a
stroke of luck as it was originally meant to be shown as a TV
movie. But the video look added to the chilling atmosphere of the
movie.

Filmmakers may argue that as the country's economy is still
recovering from the crisis of the late 1990s, the cheaper video
medium is the best option to keep being productive.

A feature film produced on celluloid is about three times more
expensive than video.

Without immersing ourselves too deep in technical jargon,
let's take a look at the difference between the two mediums.

Most feature films are shot on the standard 35mm film format
(meaning it is 35 millimeters wide). The film is used with a
camera which take pictures at a slow speed of 24 frames per
second.

This low rate means the film captures more details and yields
a slight blur in moving objects, which results in a distinct
fluidity of movement (referred to as "motion blur", which is the
prime contributor to the "film look").

Video, on the other hand, does not have this motion blur
because it runs at a higher rate.

NTSC video runs at 30 frames per second. Plus, each frame of a
video has two interlaced fields, unlike film which only captures
one frame at the time (or progressive scan).

As a result, the effective rate of video is actually 60 frames
per second, which is too fast to capture more details like film
does. It also creates images that are too sharp.

There is a breakthrough, called de-interlacing, to minimize
the ugly look of video, where new digital video cameras can take
one field of image one frame at a time.

These cameras use frame rates 24fps to 30fps.

However, film is still unbeatable in resolution even though
big efforts have been made to minimize the difference.

NTSC video has a maximum resolution of 349,920 pixels
(720x486) while PAL is 19 percent better at 414,720 pixels
(720x576). Compare those with the resolution of 35mm film, which
is close to 3,000,000 pixels.

The low resolution creates those less defined lines of Papua
landscapes in Garin Nugroho's Aku Ingin Menciummu Sekali Ini Saja
(I Want To Kiss You For Just This Once). That's too bad since
Garin is known for his beautiful pictures.

"We decided to use digital video because it's more convenient
since Papua is still an area in conflict," Garin told The Jakarta
Post.

When used properly, digital does work, such as in Blair, Danny
Boyle's 28 Days Later which is soon to hit local theaters and our
own Eliana, Eliana which made good use of the grainy look of
video to show Jakarta at night.

Most local movies, however, are shot on video simply because
it's cheap. This irresponsible, inept filmmaking attitude saddles
the audience with low quality movies.

This is arguably the country which adores digital video the
most in the world. While most international filmmakers use the it
selectively, we have jumped right in, ignoring its merits and its
drawbacks.

Of 13 films scheduled to be released this year, nine were shot
on video.It's an indication that most local film producers half-
heartedly produce movies at the lowest cost as possible while
sacrificing the creative side of their products.

If this persists, we will never catch up with our neighboring
countries, where producers are willing to spend a bit extra as
long as quality pictures are the result.