Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Cloverfield (2008) (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Cloverfield (2008)
Matt Barth
Film Handler

Posts: 46
From: Albuquerque, NM 87109
Registered: Oct 2005

- posted 01-21-2008 11:13 AM      Profile for Matt Barth   Email Matt Barth   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So I've been trying to boycott digital projection because I'm becoming one of those "Damn kids just don't get it" types. The midnight showing of this Thursday night was digital (in a 200 seater) and I figured this movie would be a good one to try and see with a nice shine on it. I loved the film, enjoyed every minute of it.

I went back Saturday to see it on a 525 seater without digital and found this is the one movie I've seen that needs to be enjoyed without digital FIRST. If you feel the need to watch it again and catch things you missed then do digital.

All in all, good suspense without the crappy music lead-in and false scares. Decent acting, it seemed realistic enough without being cheesy. Good use of the shaky cam, seriously, at no point did anyone have an excuse to say they were suprised so please stop acting like it.

---Matt

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 01-21-2008 01:31 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Cloverfield was shot on video, not film. What do you think you're gaining by seeing this show transferred to a 35mm film print?

I'm all for the preservation of true film-based production and projection done in the manner of film done right. However, 35mm projection isn't adding any extra layer of quality to any movie shot on video or even run through the quality bottleneck of a 2K digital intermediate and 2K CGI work flow. With some of the poor quality control that happens with 35mm prints made at high speed and in mass quantities you may be looking at a significant drop in quality for 2K rendered movies.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 01-24-2008 11:13 AM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here's a CNN video piece on audiences getting sick due to the "shakey-cam" thing.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 01-24-2008 01:16 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know a couple of people who were made sick and/or walked out of this movie. Was this movie shot at 24fps? If so I don't think I'd get sick. If it was shot at 60 and then made to work at 24fps like Blair Witch then I don't think I would fair very well.

Makes a good argument for home theater vs movie theater, though.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Strube
Master Film Handler

Posts: 322
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Registered: Feb 2007

- posted 01-24-2008 09:16 PM      Profile for Mark Strube   Author's Homepage   Email Mark Strube   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Blair Witch shot at 60? Are you talking interlaced? So really 29.97fps but 59.94 interlaced fields, then screwed with to make it work at 24fps? That's never a pretty process... although Magic Bullet does a pretty nice job of it.

 |  IP: Logged
Matt Barth
Film Handler

Posts: 46
From: Albuquerque, NM 87109
Registered: Oct 2005

- posted 01-24-2008 11:56 PM      Profile for Matt Barth   Email Matt Barth   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Cloverfield was shot on video, not film. What do you think you're gaining by seeing this show transferred to a 35mm film print?

I'm all for the preservation of true film-based production and projection done in the manner of film done right. However, 35mm projection isn't adding any extra layer of quality to any movie shot on video or even run through the quality bottleneck of a 2K digital intermediate and 2K CGI work flow. With some of the poor quality control that happens with 35mm prints made at high speed and in mass quantities you may be looking at a significant drop in quality for 2K rendered movies.
Is the 35mm print ADDING anything? No. The Digital print added something and whatever it was, it took away a bit of the chaotic feeling. I'm not going to argue technical specs and such, once you see the movie you may be able to discuss what helps and hurts the experience.

---Matt

 |  IP: Logged
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

- posted 01-25-2008 09:56 AM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Video, with ILM effects and Skywalker Sound applied. The motion-trackers sure had their work cut out for them.

This was a terrible picture, and I usually give movies a wide berth. Half way through, I kept wanting "Rob" to get it because I got tired of hearing them shout his name. 'Let Rob go, he's an idiot.'

The backwards reactions of the character with the video camera grated on me, too. Everytime something big would occur, we'd see it for a few milliseconds, then a swish pan to the crowd or his pals reacting - where the shot would stay. Well, if the character had the presence of mind to keep the camera on his friends, why wouldn't he be transfixed on all this tremendous action a few blocks away? Obviously, if it had been real the kid would've been running away anyway and we wouldn't have seen anything (as opposed to the stationary shots of the crowd reacting). This attempt by the filmmakers to build suspense only annoyed me.

I think the handicam/reality angle was just an excuse to make up for the lack of a solid story - or at least a satisfying resolution.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 01-28-2008 10:00 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It was OK and would have been MUCH better if not for the ultra-shakey cam. I get the look it was trying to achieve but as Roeper said in his review, people shooting on consumer video cameras don't shake THAT much. We actually had to move from the middle of the theater to the back row because my wife was feeling motion sick (and the screen was only 30 feet or so).

Effects were cool and the concept was good but the camera work made it difficult to watch.

2 out of 5 stars

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 01-28-2008 05:47 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Looking at the trailer I'm fairly convinced this movie was shot in HD at 24fps... especially since the trailer I watched was HD and it was fairly detailed and there were no motion artifacts.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 01-28-2008 07:11 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
According to IMDB it was shot with the following cameras:

Panasonic AG-HVX200
Sony CineAlta F23
Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 01-28-2008 07:44 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Matt Barth
I went back Saturday to see it on a 525 seater without digital and found this is the one movie I've seen that needs to be enjoyed without digital FIRST. If you feel the need to watch it again and catch things you missed then do digital.
I don't get this one either... Actually the effects are going to look far better projected digitally than from film.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

- posted 01-28-2008 08:52 PM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Joe Redifer
I'm fairly convinced this movie was shot in HD
I had the same feeling. Some of the shots looked too good to be NTSC.

I also saw an article that said they used a Viper, as Lyle mentioned.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 01-29-2008 01:54 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You can be sure it was shot in HD... had it been done in NTSC there would have been ALOT of noise in the video in dark scenes. NTSC cameras need the gain boosted considerably to be able to pick stuff up in dark places... this raises the noise floor typically +6db to +12db! Also, its the same amount of gain boost used weather CCD or toobe pickup.
Any NTSC loooking scan line effects would have been added after the fact...

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 01-29-2008 02:25 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
* Panasonic AG-HVX200
* Sony CineAlta F23
* Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

Not exactly the kind of video camera gear you can pick up at Best Buy for around $700.

 |  IP: Logged
Allison Parsons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 630
From: East Peoria, IL
Registered: Oct 2004

- posted 01-29-2008 07:54 PM      Profile for Allison Parsons   Author's Homepage   Email Allison Parsons   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(note I know nothing about video cameras)

So, If I was to shoot a 1hour 1/2 of footage of a monster attack on my city, how big would my memory card need to be on my camera?

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.