David Hawkins Interview
by Michael Scott
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF DIGITAL/HD
I have never shot a full project on high-end HD. I have shot tests and been involved in Productions through fellow cines. I have shot a fair amount on Sony’s HDV camera that is revolutionizing the low-end sectors such as music videos, corporate video, low-budget ads and documentaries.
HD is great in terms of video. The BIG cameras can give amazing results (such as the new Star Wars films or the Superman film about to hit our screens). The little cameras make DV look much better.
Now technically the main differences between HD and film are the same as have always been with video. Film has a far greater contrast capture and tolerance, it has a much greater colour spectrum capture, you can push film further in terms of processing to get strange results and it looks natural/random which video will never attain. Film is still easier to capture great imagery.
This doesn’t make film better, just different. I prefer film because of how it captures light so naturally and organically. That’s the look I personally love.
But high-end HD is making its way to be very similar, and one-day, maybe, no-one will pick the difference.
RESISTANCE
I don’t think there is a resistance. In fact the only people resisting the change are old school DP’s who don’t want to learn a new technology. Producers are jumping at HD because it can cut down the overheads of shooting on film, especially in the post-process. Directors love it because they are no longer cost inhibited to make their stories, and can shoot high ratios without cost-fear. It makes little difference to actors (except if it makes them look ‘unattractive’), Editors may prefer it because it means they can get into editing quicker and easier (no can after can of film ro store, just a few tapes). it obviously makes no difference to writers as it still tells stories.
DIGITAL EQUIPMENT: EASE AND CONVENIENCE OF USE
Ah, now here is the ultimate problem… everyone (especially directors and producers) think that if you shoot on video you need less crew, less money, less time. This is the bane of my professional existence!! The fact is that it takes far more work, and far more precision to make video look good. Film caprtures organically and even mistakes tend to be beautiful. Video doesn’t; mistakes glare and look horrible. If I’m shooting video, I actually need more lights, more (and more experienced) crew, more time and more design. Of course, because you are shooting on video you never get it. And then everyone wonders why the images don’t ‘look like film’!
Digital equipment has many pros and many cons. On digital you can shoot an entire feature in one-shot (Russian Ark) because you don’t nned to change mags every 10mins. On digital you can capture images in smaller and less lit locations (great for doco). Digital tends to be lighter to carry (except when you try to use film-lenses, in which case you then end up with a camera twice as big and heavier than any film camera!!).
For low-end gigs or documentaries the digital evolution is a god-bless. It is making the industry far more attainable for many people and many projects. But it is not easier if you are trying to film ‘Baraka’.
HD COMPROMISES
As a DOP I have to work much harder to ensure that my contrast ratio is contained and within digital’s limits. I have to ensure that the colour spectrum is reduced and work longer with the Designer (especially testing ) to ensure that we create the best images we can. In terms of the Industry’s attitude, I lose the respect you get when you are shooting film. This is ridiculous when I in fact have to work harder to get to the same end. I am constantly approached by Producers/Directors who want a million dollar film for a thousand bucks because they’re shooting digital. And it just doesn’t work that way.
The day that everyone realises the effort and expense we still need to put into a digital shoot will be the day we all discover just how great we can make digital.
CREW SIZES
On a proper shoot (irrelevant of whether it is film or digital) I still need my full compliment of crew and equipment. The loader no longer ‘loads’ cans of film, but someone has to look after the tapes, fill in the log sheets for the editor and clap the clapper (we still record separate sound as a back-up). The camera still has a lens that needs to be focussed and the camera looked after. Someone still has to operate it and frame the shots. Someone still has to light the frame, and needs lights and crew to do it (again it takes more work to light video). Someone still has to move the camera, on tracks, steadicam, cranes, car-rigs.
Every role is still there. The only reason crews are shrinking is because the money-spinners believe that video is ‘easy’. And they want to ensure that their profits are bigger and bigger.
FORMAT
I love both formats. Film I love most because I ‘feel’ it when i shoot with it. I just know it and what it will give me. That’s not something that can be explained… I believe other DOP’s would feel similarly.
I love video because it is great for documentary and means that there are more corporate videos and music clips being shot so that I can pay my rent (no-one makes a living off features in the country). And I love video as long as i shoot it for its own sake, as long as i get to make the most of it i can.
People always want us to make video look like film. If you want that look, then shoot film. If you want to shoot video, then give us the time and money to make video look the very best it can. If you want to save money and be cheap, then expect what you can afford. If you expect something for nothing you will probably get nothing.