Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Heide Klum "video"

This is topic Heide Klum "video" in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006688

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-24-2012, 08:40 AM:

Well, the digital guys have finally managed to do it: The film "look" complete with solarization, film damage, smpte leader, more leader superimposed over the video, scratches, lines, "rain." Now multiply that by 6 and you have more film damage in 3 minutes than I have seen in a lifetime. Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-24-2012, 10:44 AM:

I watched about 15 minutes of the TV show "Betty White's Off Their Rockers" last night and the constant phony "film damage" (what for???) was a major distraction, plus it wasn't that funny so I turned it off.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-24-2012, 11:24 AM:

I recently saw a preview for a documentary about repertory movie houses, made by owners of a struggling rep house. Why they chose to simulate film damage on their video is beyond me. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-25-2012, 11:37 AM:

I think people like that actually consider dirt, scratching and other visual artefacts caused by poor film handling to be a positive aspect of the viewing experience. When I've questioned a few people as to why they don't like watching DCPs, and specifically as to why they don't look "film like", the absence of these artefacts is frequently a part of their response. Never mind the fact that they're also absent from film presentation done right - these people are just so used to seeing it done badly that they actually object if technical standards go above a certain point.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-25-2012, 11:42 AM:

Agreed.

Miscalibrated spectator.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-25-2012, 02:35 PM:

So, there's money to be made creating a Film Damage Filter to make a DCP look the way multiplex film looked before the conversion to digital?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-25-2012, 04:16 PM:

You can them for all the standard editing and motion graphics packages (Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, After Effects, Avid, Lightworks etc.). And I've seen them used in countless documentaries in an attempt to make footage look "old", including in cases where the archive material was clearly originated on videotape. What is heartbreaking is that in many cases, the source footage was painstakingly cleaned, preserved, wet-gate duplicated etc. etc. to get rid of scratches and dirt ... and then the producer using it decided to go and put it back again! [Mad]

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 05-25-2012, 09:48 PM:

All the thousands of 'film-done-right' people won't make up for 1 idiotic producer.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-28-2012, 06:10 AM:

Agreed.

Plus, they're most likely still in nappies.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-28-2012, 11:33 AM:

I think movies are in a process of de-evolution.

Where, once there was a set of strictly held technical and aesthetic standards, today there are none.

The democratization of the medium decentralizes control over standards and devalues movies, in general.

Basically, movies as we have known them are dead.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-28-2012, 11:36 AM:

Note that Lawrence of Arabia, and many others are still selling as video 40-50 years later.

Have YOU seen anything recently that will still be selling in 10 years or more? Louis

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-28-2012, 12:29 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Where, once there was a set of strictly held technical and aesthetic standards, today there are none.

The democratization of the medium decentralizes control over standards and devalues movies, in general.

And that issue goes beyond the technology. The actors, writers, set designers etc. who worked on films before, say, the late '40s (when it became clear that TV was going to happen on a big scale) never even dreamt that their work was going to be seen by one or two people in a private setting - they were thinking about 200-2,000 in a communal setting. I've seen films - comedies in particular - that just seem lame on a TV, computer screen, iPad etc.: but put them on a big screen in front of a communal audience (regardless of the technology involved - even if you're projecting a VHS), and they come alive.

To cover the introduction of widescreen, I showed my students Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? a couple of months ago (decent print available from the BFI and because it's quite short, it fitted our campus theatre's timetable, whereas the more obvious choices, e.g. The Robe, were too long). In a tutorial with a couple of them afterwards, they expressed the view that the film was totally sh!te, and basically just didn't engage with it. Turned out that they'd skipped the screening, downloaded it and seen it on a mobile phone. In contrast, those who came to the screening reacted very differently - many found it a bit of a culture shock, but they engaged with it and "got" the central point of it (the film industry making jokes at TV's expense). I got the same response with the the film that is in many ways its British equivalent, Simon and Laura (a Rank Vistavision comedy based on the set of a TV soap opera), when I showed it a few years ago.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-28-2012, 05:25 PM:

I may have argued this elsewhere on the site, but it is important to realize no movie (with the possible exception of porn) was ever meant to be seen by one person. They are, and since the advent of projection, and have always meant to be seen communally. Money has gotten in the way of this simple fact.