Arthur Klein is shooting his documentary with a Canon XL1 camera in a 16x9 electronically squeezed setting, a relatively new format.

You’ve drained your savings account, maxed out the credit cards, borrowed from relatives who’ve bought into your eccentric genius routine… all so you could scrounge enough capital together to shoot your first feature film. But before those final drafts come back from Kinkos, there’s one thing you may have overlooked that you’d be wise to start planning for right now—post-production. Strange as it may sound, with today’s rapidly changing technologies, one of the most critical post decisions you’ll make is what medium to shoot your movie in.

For decades, 35mm film has, of course, been the industry standard. On tighter budgets, moviemakers often shot on 16mm, then blew it up to 35mm if necessary. But we are now firmly immersed in the digital era, which has opened up many more viable possibilities to moviemakers everywhere. “Video formats are getting better every day,” notes Chris Miller, President of Digital Difference, a post-production house in Los Angeles. “They looked bad at first and were used only by those who couldn’t make a film any other way. Now, 90 percent [of new moviemakers] are looking in that direction.”

Regardless of Miller’s enthusiasm, format choice usually still comes down to money. Shooting a 35mm film is a huge initial investment. It can require $40-50,000 in raw stock (if you buy short ends), developing costs, transfer to tape (telecine) fees for editing, not to mention the rental of cameras and lenses worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and insurance for same. And all the hardware requires hiring a large crew with a certain level of expertise.

Shooting on DV requires a camera that can be purchased for less than $3,000, hour-long video tapes that cost $15 a pop (and can be reused if necessary), plus no transfer fees for editing since the footage is already digitized. Also, a smaller crew is generally needed and the equipment much easier to operate. Most young filmmakers grew up watching videos and using video cameras. They are much more comfortable around them than with film cameras.

Arthur Klein, a film editor and post supervisor turned director, is currently directing a documentary feature in DV and finds the mobility of a small camera a big asset. “The logistics of shooting are much easier. How much (equipment) do you want to have to carry?” This is especially true if one is shooting in tight quarters, on a mountainside, or (dare we say) without proper permits. And should problems arise during production, there’s another advantage to DV, as Klein points out. “You can view dailies before breaking a set and so avoid a lot of re-shoots.”

The old school: Seattle’s Andy Pratt

What are the disadvantages of DV? For one thing, the money you save in production and post-production is immediately spent—to the tune of around $50,000—should you decide to transfer your video to 35mm film for festival screenings or theatrical distribution. And the one thing that Miller knows about optimistic young filmmakers is, “Everyone wants a theatrical release.” This transfer expense will someday be eliminated as more festivals and theaters move to accomodate DV product, but that day has not yet arrived.

The other drawback to shooting in DV is in the look. While it’s getting closer and closer to that of film, there is still a distinct difference. Klein points out, “Film has a grain to it; a wider spectrum, a depth of shading. There’s more information there and it looks richer. With digital, there are no imperfections and no grain.” It’s a look we associate more with news and television shows than we do with long-form storytelling. And video also has a limited ability to capture issues/40/images in low-light situations.

What about shooting on 16mm film or Hi-Definition video? “16 is dead,” states Miller. “I haven’t seen 16mm in two years.” Not only is it a tricky, costly process to convert to 35mm (in which the film loses a generation in quality), but it still requires the expense of film stock and equipment rental. And, as Klein points out, “16mm equipment is less available and not as well supported in LA. It can be easier (and cheaper) to get 35mm equipment when things are not so busy.”

As far as HD goes, it may provide a better quality picture than standard DV, but it is still a relatively new format. There’s not a lot of equipment around, it’s more difficult to use and much more expensive. Again, someday it may become the medium of choice, but no one is predicting exactly when that day will be.

Andy Pratt of Andy Pratt Negative Cutting in Seattle works primarily with film, not video. “Video has a ways to go before it becomes close to the appearance of film as a final product.” Yet he readily admits the buzz at a recent film festival he attended was all about shooting video and making it look like film. Pratt feels the decision on whether to use film or DV must be based on the goals of your project. “Are you creating a film with commercial viability or a calling card for yourself?” If it’s the former, he feels you’d be better off shooting on film.

The success rate of DV to film projects has so far been minimal, though that’s not true in the documentary world. Several DV-shot films, including the highly touted Buena Vista Social Club, have been nominated for Academy Awards. But in the feature world, Hollywood has yet to fully accept the DV medium, despite the occasional release of a digitally-shot movie. Chuck and Buck was recently released by Artisan. The critical response to the look has been somewhere between raves and disappointment. And, of course, George Lucas is shooting the next Star Wars installment on digital video, though you can be sure he’s using equipment that is still unavailable and unaffordable to the average moviemaker.

With the international market now accounting for nearly 50 percent of a film’s revenue, there is more of a demand for independent films. But in Europe, a DV feature is considered to be an art house piece. “It falls down on the international level,” remarks Pratt. That’s one reason why TV movies and straight-to-video movies are still shot on film—so they can appeal to a foreign theater-going audience. Also, having a master product on 35mm film protects the owner from any potential video format changes that may make his product unusable. “It’s what Hollywood demands,” continues Pratt. “Until the demand shifts, good commercial products [made on] DV are second to film.”

Pratt also points out that the cost of transferring film to tape for editing purposes has come down in recent years, which may kick the trend of using DV back the other way. However, Pratt does admit one thing about DV: “It’s a viable format to showcase a filmmaker’s ability,” allowing for reduction in front-end costs.

Jerry Poynton, USA liaison for Swiss Effects, a post-production house in New York, agrees. “It’s hard to raise money to make a film. You can take $10,000 and make a feature on video. If it’s no good, you’ve lost $10,000. Shoot on 35mm and it’s no good, you’ve lost $200,000.” In addition, if you lack the money to finish post, you might be able to use what’s already been shot to entice more funds.

Poynton points out how important it is to use the right camera. “Consumer models look junkie, Hi-Def is very expensive and unwieldy.” He recommends a prosumer camera that uses the European PAL format, calling it the “poor man’s Hi-Def.” It has more lines of resolution than our NTSC format and a frame rate (25 per second) that is closer to that of film (24 per second) than NTSC (30 per second).

While most filmmakers choose a camera on portability and look, they must do their research. Poynton says, “A DP must get familiar with the equipment before production and not during.” He admits this can be difficult as cameras change every few months. Familiarity, however, doesn’t just mean knowing how to use the camera. “They must give themselves time to do a test, mimicking the lighting and movement situations they will shoot.” At Swiss Effects, a two-minute test to film costs about $600, which comes off the final post price if the facility is ultimately used.

Arthur Klein is shooting his documentary with a Canon XL1 camera in a 16x9 electronically squeezed setting, a relatively new format. “I’m making a feature and planning for a theatrical release,” he says candidly. If it gets shown on television, he will simply letterbox it. Those who shoot DV in the usual 4x3 ratio may have to cut off the top and bottom of all the frames in order to expand it to film dimensions. Klein is also preparing for the future. In a few years, 16x9 TV sets will come down in price and start appearing regularly in the home market.

At what point will DV be accepted as a standard for feature films? Jerry Poynton remarks, “Enough features (on video) have been made so that the pathways are defined. Everyone is re-learning moviemaking. There’ll be a new cinema language with different kinds of shots. The visual language will change.”

Harmony Korine with Werner Herzog on the set of th DV feature Julien Donkey-Boy (1999)

Everyone agrees that over the next five to 10 years, things will change dramatically. But it still may be tough to get theater owners to accept DV features. “The costs to change theater houses would be astronomical,” remarks Pratt. “A lot dragged their feet when they had to put in Dolby, and that only cost five to 10 thousand dollars. A digital projector can cost $150,000. The infrastructure is already there for film.”

Ridge Blackwell, Director of Sales for Title House in Los Angeles, agrees. “Film still rules and will for some time. There are not many video theaters and the photochemical process is superior.” Even the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has put up its own barriers to DV films. Should any first air on the Internet—the only distribution outlet for many of these movies—they would later be ineligible for Academy Award consideration (as with any film that doesn’t first play theatrically for at least one week).

Once a filmmaker has decided what medium to use, there are many other post-production issues he must deal with in pre-production. Too often funds are unexpectedly needed during the shooting of a low-budget film and end up coming from a place where they haven’t been spent yet—namely post. The results can be disastrous—a beautifully shot and brilliantly acted movie can be destroyed when corners are cut in the editing and mixing process.

“Don’t invade the trust fund,” advises Blackwell. “Prepare your budget and hold true.” Ideally, a post-production supervisor can be hired in pre-production to not only coordinate with the production crew, but to negotiate with the different post-production facilities that he should already be familiar with. As with any business, if you wait until the last minute to obtain services, you’re going to pay more. The rule of thumb is, the smaller the budget, the larger percentage of it will go to post-production.

The filmmaking process is at a crossroads. Never before have so many people had so many affordable resources to make a professional looking movie. While film still rules, digital video and its constantly-improving technologies are growing in acceptance almost daily. But no matter what medium you shoot in, one thing everyone agrees on is that you still need to have a story worth telling. MM