HD

I have been a fan of HD when it facilitates our doing something that we are not otherwise able to do with another medium. I have always thought that was most obvious in production when using very small cameras to record big images, as was done so well on Slumdog Millionaire. When HD is used in the same way as traditional film (big cameras in studio configurations), then I have found it to be less interesting and less applicable. Unless of course there are aesthetic or practical reasons.

Last night I went to a screening of A Serious Man, which included a Q&A with Roger Deakins where he was asked about shooting HD and he put it succinctly. I paraphrase his reply - When HD is easier to shoot than film, and renders a better result, it will make sense to shoot it. Until then, it doesn't make sense to me. Up to now - it is not easier, and the results are not better, so I continue to shoot film. Arri is working on some interesting new technology that I want to test - if it lives up to its promise, maybe I'll shoot with it.

Each of us has to decide for ourselves which is the best medium for each project. When budget or convenience are the only considerations, then the artistry of the cinematographer is denigrated. The aesthetic demands of the individual production must weigh into the equation - and then balanced against the schedule, budget and other practical issues.