|
|
Author
|
Topic: Filmmaking Done Wrong
|
Mathew Molloy
Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/666.jpg)
Posts: 357
From: The Santa Cruz Mountains
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-09-2001 02:01 AM
What's the deal with this group of directors thinking it's a good idea to shoot a film on video with a handheld camera and never touch the focus nor cosider keeping anything in frame? Oh to top it off it sounds like they are using the videocamera's microphone wrapped in a blanket.I am ranting because I just ran a screener print of "Final" which will see release next friday and the reviewer came up to me and asked if there's something wrong with our lenses and sound system. I read that there's this group of people experimenting with making movies with a handheld videocamera for under $150,000. If anyone saw "Tape" it's more of the same. A small cast based on a play primarily taking place in one room. I'm sure it's a wonderful idea but keep it out of the theatres and on t.v. where it belongs. FILMMAKING DONE WRONG!!!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/299c.jpg)
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-23-2002 12:30 PM
I am shooting a three minute short on SVHS. It is bieng done for the "project greenlight" directors competition. For this purpose, shooting on video is fine.HOWEVER, If by some off chance I were to ever direct a film, and money were they issue, I would shoot 16mm instead of video. It has better color and contrast depth and better resolution than video, and would actually cost much less in the long run, as you don't have to pay for an expensive and high tech transfer to film, instead you just pay for a blow up to 35mm, it costs much less overall. Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-23-2002 02:01 PM
A quick search of the Internet Movie DataBase lists at least 300 films having a "35mm (Blow Up)" from a smaller format: http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PFM%3A35+mm%09(blow-up) Today, most are shot on Super-16mm. For blow up to 1.85:1 35mm prints, the image area used is 0.464 x 0.251 inches (11.80 x 6.38 mm), per standard SMPTE 201M. Despite the small image area, with today's fine-grained films, the results can look very good, especially with color negative film's superior latitude, tone scale, and color reproduction. A recent trend is to transfer the 16mm negative directly to "Digital Intermediate", rather than simple optical blow-up printing. This allows further enhancement of the image to improve the quality of the final 35mm prints. A recent critically acclaimed example is "Monsoon Wedding". Super-16 film has a very successful history as a high quality production method for lower budget films and television shows. ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243 e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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.
|