|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Everything is Scope this summer
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-20-2007 01:00 PM
Okay, here we go with the dailies thing again:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Because you have no clue of the capabilities of either film or Digital until you've seen some.
I understand the issues of generational loss with analog mediums and know film dailies can look much better than a release print. But we're talking about digital video.
Isn't one of the miracles of "digital cinematography" and "digital cinema" supposed to be that there is little if any generational loss from the original camera footage?
Why should the "digital dailies" be much different than the final product that gets shown on the screen, especially if it's projected digitally? Why is it that after all the digital photography and digital intermediate tasks are completed that there is still a video sourced look to at least some of that content?
Are you trying to claim that the original footage from those digital video cameras looks exactly like film, but some flunky in the digital intermediate post production chain made it look like video?
Here's what is ridiculous: you're trying to defend the output of a camera system (the Panavision Genesis) on a movie you admit you haven't even seen (Apocalypto). Look who is really making the assumptions.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I've repeatedly given you specific examples you can check for yourself if you want to bother doing so. Look at that green screen version of Sin City and see the all video look of it for yourself.
Then comes the subject of condescending personal attacks.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Where on earth have I ever done that?
You stated, "You need to stay making your signs,... perhaps start a web site called Sign-Tech. I don't think that any of is here on Film-Tech are going to speculate to tell you how to make your signs. I think many here are getting sick and tired of your second guessing most of what you post. Now go find a Panavision viewfinder to look though... Its obvious you have NO clue. Also Digital Cinema is NOT video... just another WRONG point that you bring up!"
That's pretty inflammatory. And bullshit as well. The tone definitely sounds condescending in regards to what I do in my day job, along with dismissing anything I've ever posted here.
In the flying thread, I complained that babies don't have any business on airplanes or movie theaters. You pipe in with your comment, "Just like a sign designer has no buisness here....."
There's a very obvious "Film-Tech is for movie industry employees only" snarkiness evident.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Oh, So you HAVE spoken with all those directors and DP's that have shot Stupid 35? So then I guess you really do know for sure. Perhaps even you were standing there with them
The difference is very obvious in the finished product. I'm also not the only one who complains about how Super35 movies look either. Movies shot in true anamorphic 'scope are typically better composed and usually look better all around.
You conveniently forget that I am a professional graphic artist and illustrator. I have a lot of experience in still photography and a decent amount of experience in videography. Given that background I do know a lot about image composition.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I never noticed on the finished product's credits where it says "Image Composition Ignored by Director and Cameraman"....
Mark, watch the movies and extras I gave as examples.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No one here knows for sure how much the Genesis was used on Apocolypto.
This is from the January 2007 article of American Cinematographer
quote: American Cinematographer January 2007
Apocalypto was actually the second of three consecutive features Semler has shot with the Genesis, a digital camera that uses film lenses and accessories. The first was Click, and the most recent is I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, which he was shooting at press time. “I can’t say I won’t go back to film,” he remarks, “but I’m still exploring the Genesis at the moment.” Apocalypto was his first feature collaboration with director Mel Gibson, although the two had worked together previously, when Gibson was not in the director’s chair, on We Were Soldiers (see AC Feb. ’02), Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, and The Road Warrior.
Apocalypto is set in the 16th century during the decay of the Mayan empire in Central America. The movie opens with the camera slowly moving into the jungle; the shot lasts almost a minute and ends as a tapir bursts out of the undergrowth and past the camera. This shot was made on film with an Arri 435 at 48 fps. “I was going to use the upgraded Genesis, which can shoot up to 50 fps,” says Semler, “but there was a good chance the animal would hit the camera, and that body was one of only three in the world at the time — sorry, Arri!”
That text from ASC magazine at least suggests that nearly all of Apocalypto was shot using the Genesis camera from Panvision. They noted one logical exception.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You just don't have that been there done that stuff quite yet thing to back yourself up.
You're so full of yourself you can't bother to look at the completed product in the movie theater or on DVD and see that look of video bleeding out there for anyone with eyes to see.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 07-21-2007 08:17 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
Wow. I always thought I shot video! Ever since, oh, 1997 or so I have been shooting my, ummm... "stuff" digitally. Lately I've been using a camera that shoots the image digitally at either 24, 30 or 60fps.
Im about to shoot a short film, a limited budget of $15,000 and I have been tring to decide between either super 16 where I have access to a free camera but pay for the stock, or the new Panasonic P2 varicam handycam.
Ultimatly after wondering around smpte trade show last week, I've decided to go HD digital, as the difference once graded, (Final Cut pros new grading options are amazing!) is hard for me to pick, and lets face the obvious, the punters wont notice!
The Reds Camera demo film by Peter Jackson was a let down, All filmed in day exterior, where all cameras look there best, where were the moody interior shots?, how does the camera look in low light? what happens if you use a flame in shot? Who actually shot it?, all we hear is peter jacksons name but hes a director.
Well Joe whats your advice shoot it DIGITAL or Super 16? Afterall you have obviously much more experience with the panasonic.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 07-22-2007 08:47 PM
Joe its the HVX 200 that I'm thinking about, yes there will be quite a bit of movement. I have in the garage, pipe dolly, micro jib, lights and a cheap home made stedycam rip off which I will need to use for the script.
The difference to a $0 budget and this project is very little! Most of the money will disapear for locations, quality sound recordist, experienced special effect make up artists. child actors, food, music and post production/ grading. Its fair to say that this will be a beg , borrow and steal enviroment. Non of my cameras nor editing equipment would be up for HD.
Budgets can sound impressive, but usually they are not. I worked on an cinema ad campain that had a $100,000 budget. After airline tickets, rental gear, basic wages, accomadation and a 35mm blow up! left aproxamatly $6 for on location costs!
Personally the reason I ask you this question is that I'm still not positive that its the right decision, For so long in my mind Film has been King, its hard for me to except that times are changing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
. Not a bad idea.
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic