Digital Technology Development

The use of DV cameras among audiences has significantly affected the film industry, in that audiences themselves can feel closer to the film industry and take part in similar processes of production. The decreasing price of DV cameras, as well as the introduction of new technologies over the last decade has increased the use of them, making them available to more people, and increasing the quality of the product. The use of DV cameras has benefitted the film industry, in that the audience can create their own productions, and extend the brand of the film, where users can upload their own ‘films’ to the internet, on websites such as YouTube, due to the increased number of broadband connections in homes, promoting the films in doing so. However, the use of DV cameras has also increased levels of piracy-the 2009 film, ‘The Boat That Rocked’, although having a large budget of around $50 million, grossed around $35 million. Although this is a large inflow of revenue, other British films, funded from abroad, have been known to triple their budget-2006’s ‘Casino Royale’ grossed $594 million, with a budget of only $150 million. With more people owning DV cameras, and the decreased size of the cameras due to technological advancements, cameras can be concealed upon entering a cinema, in order to record a film, to make it illegally available to others, through the use of DVD burning and the internet. The decreased quality encountered in pirate copies may make many viewers feel that the film itself was not exceptionally good, which may lead to viewers advising friends and family not to see the film, decreasing revenue for production companies, such as Working Title films, further.

Digital technology has also decreased many costs for production companies, so that films can be produced at a higher quality, with a lower budget. As many films are shot partly or fully in the digital format, some film can be offered to cinemas in the digital. However, films distributed in the digital format currently have low demand, because the costs of converting cinemas to theatres with digital screens are very high: up to $150,000 per screen or more, and it is debatable whether the picture quality is any clearer-there are also more risks of digital projectors having faults and may require a replacements after only 5 years. A simultaneous ‘blanket’ release could remove this problem, through digital distribution, as copies would be cheaper and faster to manufacture, and more could be produced (where smaller optical discs would be easier and cheaper to transport, rather than a large film reel), or it could be made available over the internet, with significantly lower costs to a distribution company, which may allow for more money to be spent on production.

Specific audiences may be deterred by the concept of digital film consumption. Some individuals, that may have a professional interest in film, may notice slight differences in quality of a digital film, and may decide that they would rather not see the film at a cinema, and may wish to wait to purchase the film when released to DVD, for example, which would decrease the revenue, and may have an effect on the budget of future productions, for the production company. However, it is evident that the repeated use of film reels, currently used in cinemas, can degrade the quality after a number of viewings-scratches and dirt on the reels will affect the quality and may deter many audiences from viewing the film after a period of time ahead of the release. Digitally distributed films, however, can be viewed repeatedly, without affecting the quality greatly, and may therefore continue to gain higher revenue, weeks after the release.

The recent developments in 3D might have something to do with it. With around 25 movies releasing theatrically in 3D in 2011, the money is clearly in the digital realm (yes, the industry is currently testing out more viable techniques for shooting 3D on film, but right now, as far as 3D goes, digital rules the day). But that doesn’t mean a filmmaker has to make a total switch and give up on film entirely. Yet, we have rarely heard from famous filmmakers who tested the waters of digital cameras and come away wanting nothing to do with the format again.

It is not uncommon for certain productions to devote segments of filming to the digital format. Black Swan used the Canon 7D to shoot its subway sequences because of its many benefits to a production. The DSLR cameras that plague film schools currently are the industry’s hottest new gadget. Anybody can shoot cinema-quality imagery for less than the price of a computer. When most professional film cameras cost tens of thousands of dollars, that’s quite a bargain. Arguably more importantly, it’s much easier to fit a DSLR into a subway car than a full film camera setup.

Film possesses a certain texture that is unrivalled by digital cameras. A talented editor or colourist can easily manipulate digital footage to look more like film, but this seems contradictory in nature. Do we alter digital footage this way because audiences are still not ready to see the true power of digital? It is possible. It seems more likely that those in charge of financing and distributing movies are not prepared to risk their investments on technology that they themselves are not ready to embrace entirely. But the look of a product on film is ingrained in our collective vision to the point that we don’t notice it until we see something different.

Many audiences today argue that a crisp image without the grain associated with film is better-looking. Audiences evolve just as fast as the technology presented to them. But a large contingent of those movie goers still want the classic look, regardless of the content of the film itself. That audience won’t be going away for a while yet – and neither will the classic film look.

The most important difference between film and digital might be seen on set. Film reels run out of film. Digital cards run out of space. But when a reel runs out, it is done forever. When a card runs out, it can be dumped and re-used rather quickly. This pushes production along financially in a number of ways

Hotel Babylon – Ethnicity

This clip is about a hotel that has illegal immigrants working for them and a man of a high authority has come to take the immigrants away. The clip deals with the representational issue of ethnicity and challenges the hegemonic norms that people of ethnicity and immigrants should not be allowed to work in a high end hotel, like in the clip.

The first thing the audience hears in the clip is the sound of a lift door opening in what seems to be a storage room. There is a smartly dressed man, and then there is instantly a two shot of two police men, symbolising authority and power. This creates the idea that the hotel is on lockdown and is about to, or has effectively become a prison, which the director uses as a running theme throughout the clip with many different uses of locks and keys and the idea of being imprisoned and captured.

The clip then cuts to a woman dressed in a very classy and expensive white outfit that is representative of the expensive lobby and theme in the hotel. An exaggerated, slow zoom is used to introduce the woman’s character. Moreover, the zoom is used to bring the audience into the hotel and the scene to make them feel more involved in the clip. Suddenly a shot reverse shot is used when the man, who seems like the leader of the police, walks through the class doors into the room. This emphasises his authority especially when the percussive beats build to create a rising tension, which acts as a metaphor for a heartbeat. Furthermore, the shot reverse shot makes the man look more powerful as he seems taller compared to the woman and his sense of authority extends to the point that he dresses comfortable and does not need to dress in a suit and tie, unlike the two man standing guard behind him.

Once the woman tells her colleague the signal to get all of the immigrants out of the hotel, it is clear that the man recognises the code as he makes a slight smirk on his close up. The quick shot of the hotel lobby when the woman alerts the colleague allows the audience to see the ethnicity diversity in the lobby which is representation of opulent wealth. The clip then reflects the panic of the situation in the camera movement as the colleague is running through the corridor alerting fellow staff to hide the immigrants, the director uses steady cam to mirror the panic. Once he has alerted the main staff lady she then goes to the kitchen and speaks in a variety of different languages so all the different ethnicities understand what she is saying. As the staff are running to a small room we see the repeated use of the shot through the fence, this deliberate editing or camera work is a visual motif and continues with the idea of being in a prison and being behind bars or being trapped.

As the main staff lady is opening the ‘staff only’ the noise of keys rattling and a lock opening is purposely made louder so the audience notices it more, this adds to the symbolic prison and trapped feel. Then there is a series of close ups on the staff, showing all the different ethnicities and suggesting that they are all together working as a cohesive unit and are now a team. Suddenly there is an exaggerated zoom on the woman’s face, and a lack of non-diegetic sound highlights the tensions and worry as someone is missing.

There is immediate cross cutting to the staff member they just realised is not there and depth of field focuses on the member vacuuming. Moreover, the shot in the corridor is very red in colour, implying danger and foreshadowing something bad will happen. The calmness of him hovering juxtaposes with the tension of the scene to create more tension as he is oblivious to the dangerous situation. The cross cutting to the staff in the room and the woman fainting is a vital scene for the representational issue ethnicity. The use of medical knowledge and the dialogue ‘I wasn’t always a cleaner’ challenges the stereotype that his ethnicity means he would not have previously been educated and not have medical skills. Most would not associate a man of ethnicity who is now a cleaner to be so well educated, considering his current situation/circumstances.

The non-diegetic, percussive drum beats heightens tension and the continuous cross cutting from the serious situation in the room to the man obliviously vacuuming creates a pressured situation that keeps building. The hyper zoom on the cleaner being caught and the juxtaposing cleaner suit and the men in smart suits plays into the ethnicity issue that the cleaner is of less power and importance. Then another hyper zoom from a higher angle on the woman’s face in the small staff room with all the members as there is a deliberately loud knock on the door, suggesting it is one of the men in suits.

Once he has been caught and the scene is now in the lobby area the woman previously working at the desk, dressed in white orders people of ethnicity around. Furthermore, the camera is moved around the lobby showing all the different ethnicities, some of a higher position, as the expensive clothes suggest, and others of a lower, staff position as they are being ordered around. The scene then cuts to a more emotional part of the clip were they are cleaning out the man who has been taken’s locker. The non-diegetic violins are very dramatic and slow as violins symbolise sad moments and that the action is over now and there is a more despondent mood. Additionally, there is a lock and key further creating the prison like scenario.

Lastly the clip shows all of the staff of all ethnicities sitting in the lunch room eating; the slow track across everyone highlights the disparity between all of the staff as they speak their own languages. Moreover, everyone has separated as they became a sort of team during the clip and have gone back to being separate in their own ethnicity group.