The second part of Timmy Magalang's interview with JP Carpio about digital filmmaking appeared in today's issue of Manila Bulletin (August 6, 2008) in Timmy's column Tech 101, and Timmy has just granted me permission to post the entire interview.

1. What's the difference between digital filmmaking and "conventional" filmmaking?

There is more than one aspect to tackle when answering this question. 

If we go by the technical difference, digital filmmaking is an electronic process whereas "conventional" filmmaking involves more of a chemical process.  This of course is decided by the very nature of their materials used to record things.  Even though it has almost become standard now to use a computer during the post production process, Film still records its images first onto chemically treated celluloid.  The light hitting the celluloid is still a chemical process at heart.  While digital filmmaking records its images onto usually magnetic tape or other digital media like discs and digital hardware.  These images are converted by the camera's computer chip or chips into bits and bytes, ones and zeros, digital information. 

Film images as projected are made up of billions of chemical grains that make up the image.  Digital film images are made up of bits and bytes that take the form of millions of pixels that make up the image.   

Film as a medium is instinctive.  It usually takes the images for what they are.  Digital video, as one filmmaker noted, because of the many electronic processes involved, "thinks too much" at times for its own good.  If one were to use a language analogy, when film records an image, less is lost in the translation and comprehension of the translation as compared to digital video. 

The great Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky once said that Film is projected at 24 still frames per second, an illusion of movement.  The same still image projected 24 times in 1 second, followed by another still image projected the same way, and so on and so forth through the mechanics of the film projector, creates the illusion of movement.  A movement that they say approximates closest to how the human eye perceives movement.  Depending on the video system, NTSC video shows the image at 30 frames per second (or 29.97 fps) while PAL video can be seen at 25 frames per second.  Having a 1 or 6 frame difference of image already creates a contrast with how the image is seen and perceived by the viewer.  Film gives off a kind of blur in its movement and an illusion of depth of perspective from a two-dimensional medium, while raw video tends to be sharper in its movements and flatter in terms of perspective.

A cinematographer once said that film is a ‘warm' medium in terms of feeling and tone and energy whereas video is a ‘cool' medium.  Both carry their own aesthetic baggage based on how they have been used in the past.  Film, they say, captures a more "dreamlike" image of life, while video captures a "harsher" look. 

If one were to go by their aesthetic differences.  That's another chapter altogether. 

If I were to understand the question differently, I think that the question's context may also come from the fact that digital filmmaking has been the medium of choice for this current wave of "independent filmmakers".  Reasons for this vary but they usually go back to economics and accessibility.  But hopefully there are also deeper reasons for using digital video rather than just settling for it as the "easier", poorer stepbrother of film. 

I must also correct the notion that medium determines whether you are "independent" or "conventional".  It has nothing or very little to do with the medium.  Conventional digital films have been and are being made, while independent celluloid films have been and are being made.  What matters most is why and how these mediums are used to truthfully express the filmmaker's visions and how the subsequent images affect the audience.

If we go to the mediums aesthetics themselves, celluloid film and digital video, like oil paints and water colors, each possess their own strengths and weaknesses.  It is up to the filmmaker to determine what values their film requires and which medium can best deliver it.  

2. Is there a digital film look? Can you describe it?

Unless processed during post production, digital video simply looks like video but as opposed to older analog video like Video 8, DV possesses a sharper and clearer image, better color reproduction, better contrast, better reaction to low light conditions etc.  Unprocessed digital video by itself again looks sharper, colder and harsher, and sometimes too clinical in its look and movements.

Processed digital video, or those that seem to want to approximate some kind of film look usually achieves this electronic blurry image, a film-video hybrid look which is still very different from film's chemical blur since the film blur is almost imperceptible while this processed video blur is readily visible to the naked eye especially at the physical edges of the people and objects and recorded.  This can soften and make the harsher digital video attain a fuzzy-like feel that is similar to but currently cannot still equal film's visual reproduction capacity. 

Ironically, to achieve this "fake film" look, one actually needs to degrade the video image somewhat in post production.  Though there may be newer processes that I am unaware of that do not involve electronically degrading the images.

The act of trying to make video look like film seems too self conscious for my taste at times.  But I wouldn't discount it.  On a personal note, I've learned to love the look of unprocessed video as it is.

3. Is it really cheaper to do a digital film?

By the cost of raw material alone, the economic practicality of digital film is very evident.  The last time I heard, a 10 minute roll of film costs around 5,000 pesos (though I'm not sure if that is a 16mm roll or 35mm roll).  A one hour mini DV tape costs a little over 100 pesos, perhaps even less if you buy it in bulk.  If you go with other higher digital tape formats like DVCAM or Digital Betacam for example they may cost much more than mini DV, but still comparatively less than film in terms of film versus digital tape shooting duration ratio. 

As in the case of digital video, having the option to actually record both image and sound on the same medium can also cut down the costs.  During the shooting process, film always has to have its sound recorded separately, either a live recording on another medium like audio tape for example, or it is dubbed in later during post production.  Having the option of simultaneous recording of image and sound for digital video can also cut costs.

Digital video offers filmmakers a less cumbersome and easier equipment set-up as compared to film. It allows us to shoot faster, cutting down the number of shooting days and possibly cutting down the expenses.

In addition, digital video allows for more flexible and accessible electronic post production requirements and procedures, reducing costs even further.

One can certainly save on the raw recording materials in digital film, but one need not, and hopefully should not, see this as a way of making a bigger profit, while reducing the budget for lighting, production design, editing, actors' and crew salaries.  Compensation and expenses for those things should always be at industry standards, if one can afford it.

Overall though, if one were to do the accounting, digital films will usually cost significantly less than celluloid films.

But more important than the cost of production, if a digital film in itself can make the audience forget about how much it costs to make a film, and instead focus on how it is affecting them personally, then that is a film worth making and worth seeing.

4. How about post production tools, which is more accessible, the digital or the 35mm?

Obviously, with the continuing rise of digital technology and the falling of hardware prices, one can already set up one's own personal digital film editing studio for a fraction of the cost of 35mm post production facilities. A personal computer with baseline editing capabilities can be set up for tens of thousands of pesos or even less, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pesos required for 35mm post production systems. More people have access to the tools and technology, but if we were to make an analogy to let's say, fiction writers or art directors, we could say that most of us have access to a pen and paper, but not all of us can be considered "writers" or "artists".

5. What cameras did you use in your films? If you have a choice what do you want to use?

I started with various Video 8 cameras then moved on to a Sony Digital 8 TRV120 owned by my filmmaker friend Grig Montegrande.  I would also borrow screenwriter Ricky Lee's Sony Mini DV TRV6 from time to time.  I've also borrowed a Sony Mini DV PC115 once.   It was only later I was able to purchase for myself a Sony Mini DV TRV40 that unfortunately suffered from an irrepairable factory defect.  It was replaced by a Sony Mini DV HC-85 that I still use up to this day.

I was able to use a borrowed Sony HDV ZR1 a few times and also liked it a lot.

If I had a choice, I would love to own or use, a Sony VX2000 or 2100, a Sony PD150 or PD170, and a Panasonic DVX-100B with a shotgun microphone attachment.  I'm curious about the new HDV cameras coming out as well as the HD cameras and medium itself. 

Based on my shooting methods and needs, I'm not too attracted to use DVD, memory stick or hard disk cameras.  I prefer to still record on tape.  

6. Some critics say that putting up digital cinemas are costly and digital images have a shorter life span. What's your reaction?

I'm not aware of the economic statistics as opposed to celluloid projection theaters, but what the critics say I believe is fairly accurate.

I don't think that there should a complete conversion of all theaters from celluloid to digital, but there should at least theaters that carry that option or have new theaters that offer only digital projection.

More important than digital cinemas, apart from the Indie Sine at Robinson's Galleria, there must be more stand alone art house cinemas that show a programmed line up of local and foreign works that have no chance of being shown widely in commercial theaters. 

I would correct that statement of critics though by saying that it is the digital medium - digital video - that technically has a shorter lifespan than celluloid film.  "Digital images" refer to something else.  And if that statement refers to aesthetics here, "digital images" can potentially be as powerful, moving and indelible as "film images", but just in a different way.

7. Can you give us an idea about the technical side of digital filmmaking? What are equipments you use? Any particular software or hardware requirements?

I use a one chip Sony Mini DV HC-85 with Sony's ECM-HS1 gun/zoom microphone accessory.  Essentially, it's a consumer level home video camera.  It's not even a prosumer level camera like a Sony VX2100 for example. 

But only bad artists complain about the tools they have at hand.  I've always been taught and have always believed, that it's how you use the tools that matters.   

Sadie Benning (?) was one filmmaker who used a Fisher Price Pixel Vision toy camera.

There are many software programs like Ulead Media Studio, Apple Final Cut, and AVID.  I've always preferred using Adobe Premiere.  I am currently using Adobe Premiere Pro (Version 7).  The only other program I've tried on the list is Final Cut Pro which took some getting used to because the interface was a little different compared to Premiere.

I wouldn't go below 1 GB of memory on your computer, (preferably DDRAM2) and the processor should be near if not top of the line.  A Pentium Dual Core at least.  And of course the more hard disk space you have the better.  I currently have a Seagate 7200 RPM 320 GB disk.  And I still need more space!  (5400 RPM disks are not fast enough to handle the digital video processing flow causing dropped frames and skipping.)  My video capture card is a generic video capture card since I can't afford the higher end ones offered by companies like Pinnacle for example.  So since I don't have any real time capabilities, my computer has to have the most processing speed for video rendering possible within my budget.    

A techie friend of mine once told me that it is only digital video processing and video games that tend to maximize or overwhelm a personal computer.  So in this case, bigger and faster is always preferable.

8. What technical preparations or skills are needed when doing a digital film?

On the hardware side, one must have at least a basic knowledge of cameras, video cameras and computers.  If not, learning on the job is always best in my opinion.   One need not be a complete technical expert in using all the equipment (although that would give you an advantage).  One can always hire or find excellent technicians to work with.  Most, if not all the skills can be learned and honed through workshops.

One must be very familiar with film as an art form as well as how the values of other art forms like painting, music, literature and dance influence and add to film.  One must be willing to examine, explore and criticize one's own life and the lives of others.  One must be able to translate personal experience into film. 

Though what is of paramount importance in making a film of whatever sort when using all these tools and techniques is what you're saying, how you're saying it and the courage, sincerity and honesty needed to express the truth of these things in the film.     

9. What can you say about open source filmmaking?

It's actually an avenue that I have yet to explore.  I'm honestly not that familiar with open source filmmaking and its potentials.

ABOUT THE FILMMAKER 

Jan Philippe "JP" V. Carpio is a self taught writer and filmmaker living in Metro Manila, Philippines.  He has written and directed some short films and three full length films shot on video: Girl of My Dreams, National Commission for Culture and the Arts Cinema Grant recipient Balay Dakû, and Hilo (thread).  His fourth full length film Palanggâ (the beloved) is currently in post production.  His writing has been published in national publications like Philippine Graphic and The Philippine Star.  He is currently a freelance videographer and editor, and a contributing writer on film and art to spacephilippines.com.

You can contact him at linaofilms@gmail.com or visit his website www.momentaries.multiply.com