By Matt Jeppsen | e-mail the author

I had recently had opportunity to interview Josh Oakhurst, Indie filmmaker and Senior Editor at SportsHD. In his spare time, Josh maintains a blog at www.joshoakhurst.com where he regularly opines and rants on various topics pertaining to shooting, editing and production.

What follows is Part2 of our two-part interview. In Part1, Josh sounded off on HD and HDV tools and workflow, why he believes that the P2 format vanish, and ripped Canon a new one.

Alright Josh, to kick it off…720p vs. 1080i vs. 1080p - Your thoughts?

Okay, this is an easy one. I know you’re barking at me about the ’small four’ Indie HD and HDV camera choices now - so lets just get dirty. I’ll start at the bottom.

Canon’s XL-H1 is nice, but its WAY over priced for what it offers. Sorry Canon, but go back and try again.

720p is fucking retarded. Its MEDIUM DEFINITION!!! Buying the JVC HD100u is almost as stupid as people who are buying the DVX100b. 720p will be an outdated format before anyone figures out how to use it to make something of substance. Sure, its great for broadcast work NOW, but what about in 18 to 24 months? I have no problem with the image quality of this camera - but ITS STILL MEDIUM DEFINITION!!! Why buy a piece of equipment headed in the wrong direction of the future?

Currently, MTVHD and ESPNHD broadcast in 720i. They won’t in 3 years. HDNet will ONLY Broadcast things in 1080i. No 1080p allowed, and let me talk about this for a minute.

Okay people. How many of you filmmakers out there will actually end up with a film out print of your masterpiece? Anyone else besides the film school students in lala land? Okay good, because unless you ARE POSITIVE your film is headed for theatrical distribution, native 24fps editing capabilities should not be of concern to you. Hell, most people who shoot in 24p don’t edit at 24fps anyway.

Don’t get me wrong. My DVX100 has pretty much never been off of 24p - but is mostly for the COLOR. So if the RED camera does come out as promised (still a big IF), guarantee I’ll probably never take it out of progressive mode, but for now, the HVX’s 24p capabilities do not outweigh P2’s shortfalls (or the price compared to the Z1U).

It’s a sad fact, but most Indies want to believe a piece of equipment is going to help advance their careers.

“Oh, the HVX overcranks and undercranks!� Not in 1080. Cool for Broadcast or Medium Def. work, but not for my Indie HD workflow.

For green screen and compositing, people worried about the perceived advantages in any of these cameras should be concentrating on learning how to light properly more than anything else. The HVX may offer 4:2:2 chroma (color) sampling, but it offers lower luma (light) sampling than HDV. At 1080i, the HVX’s DVCPRO HD samples at 1280×1080 compared to HDV’s 1440×1080. These differences are very negligible in post. Again - find the right people, not MAGIC equipment.

You’ve mentioned that you work almost exclusively in HD. What are some of the challenges of the high resolutions afforded by today’s cameras?
Haha, if anything, the HD resolution affords great looking AND really shitty looking images. When you’re staring at a huge 1080 monitor, all the imperfections of the frame and or the cameraman stand out much more than at SD resolution.

24p and other progressive flavors, do they have a place in broadcast? Over-rated?
Yes to both questions. 24p does have a place in Broadcast, but it is over-rated. Neat-O technology does not make interesting stories. 1080p certainly offers the Feature world great looking images, but for Broadcast I don’t think its necessary. One thing to consider: HDNet won’t even air anything shot in progressive mode. They are 1080i Broadcast ONLY. Sadly, this fact is due to perceived compression issues upon encoding for satellite transmission. There’s actual a mandate for editors there to never use jump cuts or white flashes because they’re worried about artifacting after using the proprietary satellite compressor they invented.

Is the vaunted and much-sought “film look” attainable in post, or should Indies shoot with 24p cameras that offer film-like modes?

While its always better to get the look you want in the camera, “film look� is absolutely attainable in post production, but budgets and workflows should determine camera choices instead of the other way around. Smart camera operators and talented editors should be more valuable than equipment with a special feature. Hey, film looks good, but there’s no reason HD has to look exactly like film. Good storytelling should be of more importance than the nuances of format aesthetics. 1080 24p does not look completely like film, but it does look really fucking good! Why keep striving for vivid image mockery?

Is ‘film look’ dead? Do you think that maybe it’s time for “high end video look” instead?

This is a question more Indies should be asking themselves. Why keep chasing the “film look’? Why must your art look exactly like 35mm? Surprisingly, the answer is people want video to look like film because they feel it will add more legitimacy to their projects. Since the emergence of video in the late 70’s, expositional quality has always been compared to that of 35mm, but why must that continue?

Film absolutely looks great, but great looks do not make a great film. People don’t enjoy Dumb and Dumber’er over Clerks just because it was shot in color. The only people married to the idea that video HAS TO look like film are filmmakers who are scared their project will suck otherwise.

I predict a future in which people will be shooting on the ole’ 35mm legacy format just because it offers them an aesthetic they’re looking for, rather than whatever will transpire in the future.

Tell me a little about your influences? What drives you, creatively? Where do you draw inspiration?

I take influences from people and places around me. I like to surround myself with creative and motivated people. I don’t worry about competition because I know there’s plenty of room for more talented artists. I like knowing other directors and making friends with all types of Indies. Motivated people who aren’t just all talk are very hard to find.

All my inspiration - my drive to get up in the morning comes from creating emotional reactions to which people relate. I look forward to reaching greater audiences with ever step of my career. I’ll be happy if I say a lot of smart things I’m trying to say. I don’t ever need to sell out a multi-plex and really, I pick up cameras because they’re fucking fun.

In closing, what do you enjoy most about your work? What do you dislike most? What are some other areas in production that you would like to explore?

It’s easy to dislike a lot about Television. For one thing, I hate TV. I own a TV because I own a DVD player and that’s it. I like a few TV shows but I refuse to watch TV because of scheduling and commercials. Traditional TV is a dying because people want random access. I’m not saying TV will ever go away, but On Demand choices will become the rule rather than the exception.

Principles aside, I hate TV because it’s hard to create art. The only people creating art on TV are a small handful of motion design companies and well-connected producers. Even then, TV doesn’t pay you to make art. TV pays you to be efficient, and you’re lucky if you can make a little art in the process. TV is a monster.

I’m just a director trying to make it happen like everybody else. Along the way I’ve been able to learn a little bit by finding a temporary home in the HDTV market. I mean, at least I’m working in the same field. Overall I can’t complain too much - I was ‘freelancing’ (read: unemployed) and managing a snowboard shop for three years straight before my talents were picked up for broadcast exploitation.

Can’t wait for the opportunity for my talents and soul to be exploited on film too. Well, HD anyway.

Thanks to Josh for taking the time to sound off. Feel free to sound off with an opinion of your own below.
Josh can be found ranting and raving at www.joshoakhurst.com.

Read Part1 of this interview here.