Compression is not your enemy

This is a subject regarding the art of digital filmmaking. It's something I originally wanted to discuss in a video I was planning on making, but circumstances have caused me to skip that long process and just put my thoughts in writing instead. This is, after all, a blog about movies as a whole and not only limited to reviewing new releases. With that in mind, I think it's time I talked about an aspect of filmmaking that has been on my mind for a while. That being what is arguably the most controversial word in digital cinematography: Compression.

For the uninitiated compression refers to how most prosumer video cameras (that is video cameras available on the consumer market that include professional level features) tend to record video. When a prosumer video camera shoots a clip of video, it will usually squeeze said video file into a smaller version of itself to maximize storage space. It's like taking a giant photograph and folding it down to make it fit in your back pocket. For the most part, this is not really a problem. As maximizing storage space is a much-desired aspect for prosumer video cameras. However, for specific applications, like say cinema, it's not always preferred.

Most cinematographers who opt to shoot their projects on digital video will typically want to shell out the cash for a more powerful and more expensive camera. These kinds of cameras include the RED, the Arri Alexa, and any camera in SONY's F series. These cameras offer higher resolution, more color control, and shoot video that is uncompressed. 

Part of the problem with compressed footage that most cinematographers take issue with is the degradation of said footage. Depending on the brand of camera and the technology utilized for compression as there are many different kinds, most compression methods create what is commonly referred to as "compression artifacts." These are small and sometimes hardly noticeable elements occasionally found in the compressed footage. Thay can range from an image not being as sharp as desired to what is called "macro-blocking," which is the appearance of small squares randomly flashing in the video clip. This is when the camera is trying to figure out how to accurately recreate the image without really remembering what was in the picture in the first place. A kind of guesswork if you will.  

Now, this is not intended to give the impression that compressed footage is automatically ugly and could never be used in a cinematic situation. The good news is that not only is it possible to use the compressed footage in a cinematic condition, but it has also actually already been done. In 2012, cinematographer Shane Hurlbut (you know, the guy that Christian Bale chewed out on the set of Terminator: Salvation for not standing still during a scene) took on a unique film project titled Act of Valor. An action thriller that would star active Navy Seals. Due to the unusual and extreme nature of this project, and partially due to the Seals erratic deployment schedules, Shane Hurlbut decided that this film was going to require an equally unusual and extreme approach.

Shane decided to shoot the majority of the film on three Canon DSLR cameras. The 5D Mark II, the 7D, and the 1DX. All of which shot high definition video at 24 frames per second, the traditional cinematic frame rate. See images below:

Because of the small form factor, lightweight, and convenient internal recording options, these cameras allowed Shane Hurlbut to better maneuver around the Navy Seals and the extreme situations they were asked to be placed in for the story. Including a stealth infiltration scene shot in a bug infested and Crocodile occupied swamp. 

After this experience, Shane Hurlbut loved these cameras so much, not only has he fully transitioned from shooting on celluloid film to shooting on digital video exclusively, he has also advocated the aesthetic power of compressed video. In an educational series from B&H Photo & Video he hosted, he goes on to describe compression as "the reason it looks like digital film." Don't take my word for it, listen to the man for yourself. See video below: 

Another example of this phenomenon is an indie romance film titled Like Crazy. Cinematographer John Guleserian originally intended to shoot this movie with two digital cameras. The Canon 7D and the RED. However, after a series of tests with both cameras, John decided that he preferred the convenience and the aesthetic quality of the 7D and convinced the director, Drake Doremus, to shoot the entire film on that camera instead. That same camera would be used for another indie film titled Tiny Furniture. Which not only played on the big screen but is also now included in The Criterion Collection. 

Today, most filmmakers who are still making videos and movies with DSLR cameras are now opting to use an external recorder. A device which connects directly to the camera and records higher quality video uncompressed. Which is an excellent option but, at least in my opinion, I can't help but feel as though that defeats the purpose of using a DSLR in the first place. I have shot projects on DSLRs and have, on occasion, used an external recorder. I love the images I get from both recording options. But even so, I can't help but agree with Shane Hurlbut and John Guleserian and prefer the aesthetics from the original compressed footage. 

The technology you choose to tell your story with doesn't matter. It is the quality of the story itself that matters most. While better technology can play a significant part in enhancing your story, I believe that you should not worry about compression. If compressed footage can hold up on a sixty-foot screen, it can hold up anywhere else and carry your story to greater heights.