Film vs digital part 2

[Angus]

It is quite possible that they intended 28 days later to look like that, fitting the subject matter somewhat...rather like Spielberg choosing B&W for Schindler's List.

I must agree about star wars II, it really does lack any visual impact. The digital video isn't *bad* as such...just lacking.

I don't like the way certain effects have been re-done in the new star wars. Like the 'holograms'...the old ones I am certain were derived from using the movie camera to film a video display...the new one is computer generated and looks totally different and less convincing somehow.

[Jan]

Hehe, some poor kid at ILM propably spent a lot of time emulating the "look" of that cheap old hologram effect in CGI.

[mattias]

again i encourage you all to see the swedish film fucking åmål (show me love in some countries). not only is it possibly the best film from that year (1998), it was also a huge box office hit in scandinavia and did well on many foreign art house markets, *and* it looks like shit if you like crisp grainless images. :-) it was shot on 16 mm ektachrome vnf stock (7240 and 7250 i believe) and after a few printing steps it actually looks a lot like super-8. i'll try to post a few stills from the dvd...

/matt

[mattias]

ok, here we go, i believe this would be considered fair use under most countries copyright laws...




/matt

[Jan]

I did see it, and thought at the time that it was shot on miniDV...

Now that i think about it, it was a projection from VHS copy - an LCD projector. EVERYTHING looks like miniDV with those things...

[skyy38]

Reassuringly most people I have talked to about Star Wars II said they noticed something odd about the picture.

28 Days Later just looked ghastly, but I wonder if that was the intention of the maker?

In either event, the picture quality didn't hurt ticket sales, and that lowers the bar for the industry as a whole.

And in either case,the "civilians" in the audience could've given a shite about"picture quality".

[T-Scan]

i recently atteded a film festival in Portland put on by amature local film makers.. about 10 short films were shown that were a mix of 16mm, a little super 8, and digital. not being biased, i thought the digital shots fell far short on the"mood" that the film scenes provided, they were obvious too. regardless of less grain.. digital in my eyes has no magic to it.

[mattias]

And in either case,the "civilians" in the audience could've given a shite about"picture quality".

wrong. they might not be able to articulate it, but to me it has always seemed like they care even more than both the art house and filmmaker audiences.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

And in either case,the "civilians" in the audience could've given a shite about"picture quality".

wrong. they might not be able to articulate it, but to me it has always seemed like they care even more than both the art house and filmmaker audiences.

Wrong. They "articulate" it every time they pull out their wallets for another ticket to a half-baked movie shot on digital. If they really cared then they wouldn't keep paying out the bucks to go see crap, in terms of content and image quality. The proof is in the box office, regardless of what you or I think about it.

[mattias]

Wrong. They "articulate" it every time they pull out their wallets for another ticket to a half-baked movie shot on digital.

when they buy the ticket they haven't usually seen the film already, so they can't possibly articulate their opinions at that point. you can sell anything with clever or just expensive marketing, but would they go again, buy the dvd, the special edition dvd, the doll set, if blade runner had been shot on digital 8 and no smoke machine?

/matt

[nasq]

By the way, what do you think about the uncorrected frame from Viper:

http://www.pixelmonger.com/vip1

Looks a "little" green to me, dunno why that is. These new HD-cameras are pretty good, I could imagine shooting with them instead of film. You can get all the professional accessories for them, just like for film cameras. The look is also very decent because there's enough information to fiddle with. I saw a demonstration with the thing shot with S16mm, HD and 35mm. They all looked much alike. Of course they were color corrected to look the same.

[MovieStuff]

when they buy the ticket they haven't usually seen the film already, so they can't possibly articulate their opinions at that point.

Come on. You've never walked out of a movie and demanded your money back? Do you think they live in a vacuum and don't know that the movie they are about to see was shot on digital? Do you think that other producers would jump on the digital bandwagon if there was any evidence that the audiences reject digital productions wholesale?

It isn't about people going back to see the same digital movie again. It's about OTHER movies being made digitally because previous digital movies were succussful, regardless of the reason.

Roger

[S8 Booster]

A little bit on the side but I recently went to the cinema with my son again watching the Digitally Animated Nemo DIGI "cartoon". (A la Toy Story)

No complain really but I felt the lack of colours and a very low contrast somewhat disturbing. To me it was sort of a downtrip. For my son it was not.

Dis/Advantages in my view:

Digital=
• Smooth motion
• Sort of 3D like

Old Fashion Cartoon=
• Superb colours.
• Superb Contrast/Clarity.

= Relaxing to my eyes.

Did the audience like it? Yes=100%
Did they think it was low on colours and contrast = no
Is Digital here to stay? = Yes
Was the film projeced from a film projector = Yes.
Am I too old fashioned = Yes

R

[jumar]

Do you think they live in a vacuum and don't know that the movie they are about to see was shot on digital?

Sure, they might know if it's a Rodriguez or Lucas picture, but otherwise, they don't know.

I've stayed through to the very end of at least four feature length movies (indie) in the last year looking for either a "film by ..." or HD credits because I couldn't tell for sure, even after seeing the film. I saw an HD picture two weeks ago that completely tricked me, and a film short four weeks ago that I was convinced was HD. There's a certain film look in which it is very difficult to tell, and if I go into a movie not expecting digital, I often won't recognize it unless there is a flaw in a shot (because I'm assuming it'll be film).

I'm curious to see "Pieces of April" this week. It's that film starring Katie Holmes shot on the PD-150.

[Brandt]

I think the point regarding whether the audiences will accept films of digital origin plays to a larger problem of audiences accepting films that possess little to no production value. The last movie I saw was Spider Man, simply because it was a night out with my dad. The only movie I've wanted to see since then was The Fast Runner, which I missed. Granted, I've missed a lot new films as they show up in the arts section of the local paper, but all the stuff I see advertised just looks like more Hollywood crap.

Though I haven't seen it, the video component of 28 Days Later seems to suit the grittiness of the story, and with a $10 million budget, they could have shot it Super 16 or 35mm, if they had wanted. There are lots of options at that level.

When movies like "Dumb and Dumberer" make it out the door...shot on 35mm...and audiences aren't calling for somebody's head, it says a lot about what they will take and what they won't.

For me, the fuzzy pastel image didn't make Star Wars EPII unwatchable. Lucas' script did.