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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Heide Klum "video"

Author Topic: Heide Klum "video" Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-25-2012 11:42 AM                     Agreed. Miscalibrated spectator.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 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?  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 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!  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 05-25-2012 09:48 PM                     All the thousands of 'film-done-right' people won't make up for 1 idiotic producer.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-28-2012 06:10 AM                     Agreed. Plus, they're most likely still in nappies.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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.