There are a lot of misconceptions about film, HD, and video. I throw in 24P into the mix, because, while many people don’t know what it is, they recognize the difference when they see it. I remember when I was a kid I would stare at video and films, trying to figure out why one of them looked more like reality, while the other looked glossier and more dramatic. Really. That’s what I would think about as a kid. I wondered about this for about 20 years. And it’s no wonder that there’s so much confusion. Even common vernacular encourages this. People ask, “Are you filming?” to see if they are recording. And the material captured is referred to as "footage."

To start off, let’s explain the difference between film and video. Film is just as it sounds. It's captured on film using a photochemical process to create the image. Just like the still cameras we all used to use before the digital revolution. Movies are generally shot on film, but not always, as I’ll talk about later. Most television is shot on film too. Video, on the other hand, is a different medium altogether. Video is a little harder to describe, but let it suffice to say that it is a different process to capture images, most commonly using videotapes for storage recorded through video cameras.

There are a number of reasons the two look different, ranging from color balance and grain to contrast and tonality, but until recently, the two constants have been that video is interlaced and it runs at a different frame rate.

In NTSC (the standard used in the U.S.), video runs at 60 frames per second. Film cameras play at 24 frames per second, and that fact alone will create a markedly different look. Just as significant is the interlacing. Video is captured in halves. Imagine if the image from your TV screen were broken up into hundreds of lines, and instead of capturing image data from every line in each frame, only half of them were used. More specifically, video alternates between capturing the odd half and the even half of the lines, so when it records an image each frame, it only records half of that image. To make a complete image, we need to combine the one set of odd lines and one set of even ones. Hence, the term interlacing. It is this interlacing and the framerate that make watching a movie and a newscast so different in appearance. Is the look of one medium better than the other? Not necessarily. But most people tend to associate quality with film.

“Your wedding videos look so much like movies!” I hear that quite often. So, if video is so different then how can we make things look like film when we shoot video? The answer is 24P. 24P is a format now supported by several video cameras. Unlike traditional video, it captures whole frames of images at once – no interlacing here, and it does so at 24 frames per second. This is similar to the way film cameras captures images, thus giving a filmic look. Until the Panasonic DVX-100 showed up on the scene, it would cost about $70,000 to buy a camera that could shoot in 24P.

So what about shooting in film? Well, we spent some time playing around with 8 mm film cameras for our wedding work, but it just wasn’t our cup of tea. Among some, this may be considered blasphemous. It seems that here in New York, there’s a niche market among the elite based on shooting weddings with film. It is, after all, the indie film capital. As a director, I’ve choosen to shoot with film, so I’m a little torn when I say this. I do love the look of film. Even 8 mm, which is what most people use for weddings. It is organic with beautiful grain structure.

But really, when I say I love the look of film, it’s 35mm film I’m talking about. This is the format typically used for shooting movies and most television shows. The quality is impressive, as we all know by taking a trip to any theater. Even Super 16 film looks quite pleasing. Leaving Las Vegas was filmed in this format. But most people don’t use Super 16 at weddings. They use Super 8. By this point, we’re looking at a resolution less than 1/10th that of 35mm film. We’re also generally referring to the use of much more elementary cameras than are used for movie and television production.

In then end, what it comes down to is personal preference. If people like 8mm, then by all means, use it. But when people talk about the natural beauty of film and assert that video pales in comparison, I believe that it is a significant overstatement that is more marketing hyperbole than substantive analysis. Being a matter of opinion, several people will disagree strongly with what I’ve just said, but it remains my opinion. What is fact is that in the exchange for the look of real film, shooters are limited to shooting less footage with no image stabilization, and less sensitivity in low light. On top of that, it is harder to focus, and the look of the film will include uneven lighting, dust, and limited resolution. And I’m going to say it. Well shot video is beautiful in its own right. I know that might strip me of any cachet as a high end wedding video provider, but that’s my two cents.

OK, so we can already figure that I’d take good video over 8mm for my own wedding, and, in fact, I did, but let’s add a twist. Now there’s HD. HD is a higher resolution acquisition standard, but it is still video. I know how popular it is to refer to HD as "HD" instead of video. I mean, who really wants people to think that their upscale medium is the same as those little camcorders that tourists use while walking through Times Square? But HD is video. And it is nothing like the little cameras Uncle Bob uses in Times Square.

Large parts of Collateral were shot on HD. And if someone would prefer to shoot a commercially distributed movie in 8mm instead of HD, I would have some serious questions. Of course the Viper Filmstream camera used for Collateral is about as far off from low-end HD as a Ferrari is from a Honda, but it was still HD. The same is true for the new Star Wars films.

What’s more interesting is that a number of HD cameras are about to make their way into the wedding video industry. It’s true that we’re also talking about HDV, which is a spin-off of HD, but we’re still looking at resolutions substantially higher than what you can get with an NTSC video camera. I think there’s no question that HD exceeds the quality of NTSC, all things being equal, but does it exceed 8mm film?

I suspect that for the vast majority of viewers, the answer will be “yes.” Oh, I can hear the people talking about the organic luminance range of film in my head. “It has 11 stops!” The ephemerally beautiful quality of film, yada, yada, yada. But in my book, there’s not much comparison. Even good standard video exceeds 8mm as I see it. Take a look at the footage from an SDX900. Looks great, even when upconverted to HD. And well shot HD just decimates 8mm film in detail and resolution. Color quality can also be excellent. And while dynamic range may be limited to 7 stops for some cameras, the look is still quite nice when shot well.

I don’t think any of this will change the fact that certain people will opt to truly “film” their wedding videos. And I think that’s just fine. My beef is over the assertion that video can’t equal the look of film and is inherently inferior. Or when people wax poetic about the attributes of film, positioning it as a holy grail. Film is film. Video is video. Each medium has its own properties, look, and advantages. People should work with that which they like and works for them. But in the end, quality lies in the result and not the medium.