my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » What some videographers will do for attention (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: What some videographers will do for attention Gerard S. Cohen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 975 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 12-16-2002 08:34 PM                     Don, I find your exposition of the title fascinating. It adds another dimension to the production. I was thinking "ark" as in the story of Noah, in that the Hermitage provided an escape from the bloody flood of Russian history. And like the Ark, it contained the seeds of an entire civilization within it, etc. Gerard  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-16-2002 09:44 PM                     My own opinion about whether it is film or video is pretty much based on the original recorded medium. If film cameras were used, then it is a film. If video cameras were used, then it is a video. But I suppose one could still call "Russian Ark" a "movie." One continuous shot for the entire movie. That really is something. Brian DePalma must be gnawing out his liver in jealousy over that one. Kinda makes those super-long Steadicam shots in "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "Snake Eyes" seem pretty minor by comparison. Since the hard disc system used on "Russian Ark" has a maximum capacity of 100 minutes, I would guess the video would have to be a tad bit shorter in run time.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 12-17-2002 12:15 AM                     The straight-to-film release is 96 minutes (at least, in France and Japan) according to IMDB. However, the Time Magazine review has it clocking in at 87 minutes. hmmm, something tells me this ISN'T a film to be cut for different markets  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-17-2002 05:01 PM                     From the Telluride Film Festival's schedule. Hitchcock dreamed of making a film in a single take, but Alexander Sokurov, thanks to HD video technology, accomplished it. RUSSIAN ARK is a 96-minute dream journey through St. Petersburg’s Hermitage, three centuries of Russian culture, 33 rooms and 2000 extras. A French Marquis guides us, commentating on Russian art, interacting with historical figures (Catherine the Great, Nicholas and Alexandra), all the while responding to the dreamer’s often incredulous reactions. This is a startling departure from the austere earlier films of Sokurov, who was a Telluride tributee in 1998. The film’s final sequence—a Royal Ball of 1913 with hundreds of resplendently costumed dancers—eclipses even Visconti's THE LEOPARD as perhaps the cinema's richest evocation of the aristocratic culture of Europe in its fading hours. Brilliant. You’ve never seen anything like this. Filmed by Steadicam operator Tilman Büettner (RUN LOLA RUN). –PS (Russia, 2002, 96m) Preceded by POPULI (8m, see page 32) In person: Tilman Büettner, David Russo Both the Telluride Film Festival and the Hawaii Film Festival presented Russian Ark on film, doing manual changeovers on 2,000 foot reels. If this disappoints you, you'll just have to learn to live with disappointment. From Merriam Webster's Main Entry: film·mak·er Pronunciation: 'film-"mA-k&r Function: noun Date: 1908 : one who makes motion pictures film·mak·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flmmkr) n. One who directs or produces movies Just because you want to make a point and change the word, doesn't make it so.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-17-2002 05:31 PM                        That's not what I asked, Ian. I want to know about all of the missed frames that occured at Telluride at each changeover! You can't tell me it was as smooth as a newborn baby's ass.  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-17-2002 06:10 PM                     Well if you must know, the plot was revealed in those missing 6-10 frames that were cut off in each changeover. Without the plot, it was just another boring Russian tour of an art museum. Also the “filmmaker” used transition shots just like Hitchcock did in Rope. He would zoom in on a painting while behind him the actors were resetting the shot for a change in time period. Hitchcock had people walk in front of the camera with their dark suite jackets so he could stop the shot to change film magazines. Conversely this is also where all the changeovers are located.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-17-2002 06:15 PM                     Dictionaries have changed their definitions over the years. Also, how many people at Websters even know anything about "film"? I doubt if there are any employees at that company with the letters "ASC" printed after their name. My point with that is items like word definitions in a dictionary can be hotly contested points of entirely subjective argument. My own opinion goes to the medium. We call that celluloid strip "film". That magnetic medium in an electronic camera has been "videotape" for decades. And most technical people in the film and TV industries have drawn the lines between "film" and "video". I think they are the ones above all others who deserve to declare the true definition of "film."  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-17-2002 09:22 PM                     Sorry Ian, but if you shoot on video (or some form of "digital"), then you have no right to call yourself a filmmaker. There are a multitude of other words that are completely appropriate for someone shooting a movie on a non-film format, but calling videomakers "filmmakers" is insulting to the film format. Shame on you.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-18-2002 02:01 AM                        Also, video wasn't around in 1908 when that definition was written, so obviously it is a bit skewed, since back then there was no other way to make movies except using film.  |  IP: Logged Lindsay Morris Expert Film Handler Posts: 233 From: Darlington, WA, Australia Registered: Sep 2002 posted 12-19-2002 03:27 AM                     Splitting hairs here guys, as it appears that a lot more movies are being shot DIGITALLY, editted, sound mixed and finally tidied up all digital. Then a printing neg is burnt using an Arrilaser machine and then what you see on the projection print is second generation from the camera lens. I was privileged about 18 months ago to screen a demo reel of this stuff for ACS people here in Perth (Australia). The whole workshop was about using digital cameras, taking the recorded stuff back the editor on a memory stick or something similar (I was not at that session so not really sure of what method was used) The captured images are then worked on all digitally and the final result when everyone is happy is to send it into the Arrilaser and out pops the printing negs. It was a 20 min reel with about 5 segments and I had to stop and start on cue from the podium speaker. There were demos of stuff shot in Super 16, converted to digital, editted and finally a neg made. Stuff in 1.85 WS normal and the most remarkable demo was footage shot around Sydney at night with a spherical camera lens and then converted DIGITALLY to scope. That scope image almost popped out of the screen it was so sharp and an absolute joy to focus... even edge to edge the best I have seen in scope and NOT filmed with an anamorphic lens. The reasoning behind using a speherical camera lens and digitally going to scope for projection is the removal of the lens distortions that an anamorphic lens produces. I have made plenty of 8mm films using an anamorphic lens on camera and then onto the projector and with that small frame size would have thought that I would see distortions other than some bending of vertical lines so I don't really know if that angle is valid. The guy running the workshop was saying that in his opinion that the digital revolution has actually extended the life of 35mm projection by some 8 to 12 years or more. This is all due to the quantum leap forward in making of the film going all digital right up until a printing neg is struck which gives an effective SECOND generation from the camera lens onto the screen rather than around 10 or more generation steps done in the traditional way with camera negs, internegs etc etc until a master copy is ready for the printing stage of print negs. The digital editting suite is an absolute breeze compared to the older methods we have all heard about or done or seen. From a projectionist's point of view what I saw on the screen that day was nothing short of startling and so crisp and sharp that the new fine grained films coupled with the digital process far exceeds the BEST that digital projection can do at present. He did rattle off the various comparison figures of pixels and grain size but I was too busy to jot anything much down (waiting for my cue to get rolling again etc.) I don't think it matters how the film is produced it is the end result on the screen that is important. The digital revolution has given film projection a huge shot in the arm that will probably keep digital projection in the background for sometime until they catch up. I believe that Atlab in Sydney have two Arrilaser machines and are ready to use them if not already doing so and from the photos they just look like a big fat washing machine. Digital info goes in and a laser burnt printing neg rolls out. Just for those who dislike Ballantynes. The demo was done on a Pro 35 and as long as I pay attention to the gate tension I have NEVER had a problem running it. So keep your eyes peeled for some better quality film coming your way thanks to the digital process that made it. Lindsay  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-19-2002 04:45 AM                     That's good news Lindsay and I look forward to seeing some digital movies, or digital productions, or digital features and even running some digital shows on real film, but using the word "film" to describe a production not shot on actual film is insulting in my book. (Perhaps I should add this to the policies of this board, as this is primarily a film based website.)  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-19-2002 08:16 AM                        Lindsay Morris: Most of what you describe is "Digital Intermediate", using FILM originals: Kodak Future Technology Digital Intermediate for "8 Mile" Prieto Interview Digital Intermediate for "Traffic" Digital Intermediates Digital Intermediate for "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" KODAK VISION2 Films  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 12-19-2002 10:28 AM                     quote: calling videomakers "filmmakers" is insulting to the film format. But what about crossover filmmakers such as this one? Isn't it insulting calling a highly regarded film director (who has shot on film) a videomaker just because he chooses to shoot on hard disk for this one project? Do we dismiss Soderbergh as nothing "more" than a videomaker (connotaion: hack) for his one-time experiment with the format? quote: I doubt if there are any employees at that company with the letters "ASC" printed after their name. My guess is there are no MD's that are employees at Webster's, either, but that doesn't prevent them from defining medical terms. The do have researchers who are capable of coming up with consensus, though, and it's important in any language to have some sort of agreement on what words mean. quote: And most technical people in the film and TV industries have drawn the lines between "film" and "video". Historically true, but this was mainly due to producers getting a way to decrease union rates for a new medium. Currently, the technical unions are battling that distinction and hope to erase it now that new technologies are increasingly being employed in the industry, especially for TV production. This suibject has been covered extensively by Variety and the Los Angeles Times.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-19-2002 10:38 AM                        Many people still think of Kodak as only a "FILM" company, yet we are a world-class supplier of digital imaging technology, services and products, and have led the way in developing "hybrid" imaging technologies combining film and digital imaging. Kodak calls it "InfoImaging": http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/infoImaging/ http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/techProdHighlights.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/ IMAGING is our business.  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-19-2002 01:35 PM                     Imanginering Disney Motion Picture Maker clunky Moviemaker  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.