Lynch uses PD150 for new flick!

[Mitch Perkins]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/movie ... ref=slogin

Long takes I can understand, but not taking the time to light?

Oh well, the times they are a stranging.

Mitch

[Ed]

Yes, I remember when I heard about this months ago, I was very surprised. Especially the fact that Lynch said he was done with film. The reasons for him using dv were good ones for his situation though. More spontanious/ ad libed acting/shooting, lighting conditions, something a little more portable. At least he used dv and not hd. THAT, I was very surprised about and fans of digital didnt really get that. But I think the poor looking image that will come out of it (I havent seen the film yet of course), will probably have an interesting effect. I had heard that he needed the footage to match up some footage from his online shorts, which were shot on dv. I had read months ago that he was going to have it transfered to a 35mm film print, but now it looks like he may not. Lynch is my favorite director along with Kubrick, so I can't wait to see the film regardless.

[flatwood]

My impression of Lynch is that he tends to maximize his profit in the name of art which, I think, is in his ability to get away with it.

[Mitch Perkins]

My impression of Lynch is that he tends to maximize his profit in the name of art which, I think, is in his ability to get away with it.

Yeah, but a f**kin' PD150 ?! ~:?)

Well, he's one of my all-time favourite directors, so I'll not avoid this outing. Might even prompt me to use the VX2000 for some of my next project.

Thing is, if he doesn't want to light, even 16mm would look better.
Prediction: someone will offer him money for a project and he will return to the mighty silver halide...we'll see.

Mitch

[Ed]

Yes but with 16mm, the film still has to be loaded, plus im guessing the camera would be heavier, and the film would run out much faster than the dv tape. And I think those were some of the reasons for his choice.

We'll see...

[reflex]

"Film is beautiful... but dead. A dinosuar. DV is very liberating. It's so straightforward to use... and it has autofocus. DV is nowhere near the quality of film. I shoot on a Sony PD-150 and the quality is *terrible*..... and I LOVE it."

- David Lynch

[Mitch Perkins]

Just watched "The Deerhunter" on TV.

What a beautiful, beautiful film.

Quality and beauty still matter to some of us, and we will revel in it, even as the world succumbs to ~easy~ all around us.

To each his own.

Mitch

[Evan Kubota]

Quality and beauty still matter to some of us, and we will revel in it, even as the world succumbs to ~easy~ all around us.

The implication here is that video cannot be used rigorously or beautifully, which is false. I happen to love "The Deer Hunter" and I nearly always prefer to use film but video has its uses as well.

[Mitch Perkins]

Quality and beauty still matter to some of us, and we will revel in it, even as the world succumbs to ~easy~ all around us.

The implication here is that video cannot be used rigorously or beautifully, which is false. I happen to love "The Deer Hunter" and I nearly always prefer to use film but video has its uses as well.

Absolutely. And thanks for writing "The Deer Hunter" properly...I was thinking maybe I got that wrong.

I was more following up the Lynch thing and his particular reasons, which seem to eschew rigour. In the OP linked article, he mentions enjoying not having to take the time to light! Eesh!
Does anyone think a PD150 produces results reminiscent of "early 35mm"? I don't.

Same with Michael Mann. These extremely talented fellows consistently mention ~ease of use~ as their reason for shooting tape, whereas for the last hundred years or so, people have been producing cinematic masterpieces happily within the constraints of the film medium, which aren't that constraining in the first place!

Little that is worthwhile has ever been easy to do. I'm disappointed that someone like Lynch, a painter no less, would opt for easy over beauty and authority. Take the same amount of time to light any scene with both media and film will always look better. So if you care, and have a bit of time and money, why not give your project the respect it deserves?

Now to pre-answer the question I hear coming - I shoot Super 8 instead of 16/35 because Super 8 is within my reach to capture on my own dime without artistic interference from financiers, and it still looks beautiful and authoritative to me. I don't use Super 8 because, "it looks terrible, but oh well, it's easy".

So my wording implied the wrong thing; I agree tape has it's uses and can be approached with rigour. The same rigour, however will produce better results when applied to film, even Super 8 compared to prosumer MiniDV.
The weddings I shoot on S8 end up being a mix of both media. We are restricted to whatever natural light happens to be available, so in low light situations, the tape sees what the film cannot, but when the light is right, the film tosses the tape down a deep, dark hole.

Mitch

[Evan Kubota]

Does anyone think a PD150 produces results reminiscent of "early 35mm"? I don't.

I had to laugh at that part of the article. Even 35mm from the 1920s looks better (more detailed, more pleasing, etc) than PD150 footage.

Have you seen Miami Vice? They clearly took the time to do some excellent lighting work. The use of video makes that film much more effective.

[Nigel]

I say perfect...

Can't wait to see it. Film is film and we all love it so this forum is going to be biased. Lets see what he does and go from there.

Good Luck

[Mitch Perkins]

Does anyone think a PD150 produces results reminiscent of "early 35mm"? I don't.

I had to laugh at that part of the article. Even 35mm from the 1920s looks better (more detailed, more pleasing, etc) than PD150 footage.

Have you seen Miami Vice? They clearly took the time to do some excellent lighting work. The use of video makes that film much more effective.

Haven't seen it yet. Mann has hit upon an interesting angle - because it's that down and dirty, "Cops" type of feel, the tape actually gives one a feeling of heightened reality, or reality TV anyway (I did see "Collateral" and trailers for MV). Funny, he doesn't cite this as a reason for using tape - maybe it's not - works for me though.
Again, Mann cites longer takes and the ability to capture the LA night sky as his reasons, but 1000' of 35mm is ten minutes, longer than 99.999% of film scenes! Stagger two cameras and you can shoot as long as you like. Film is not theater, hasn't been for 100 years, yet directors have managed just fine. Also, I've seen that LA night sky in other movies shot entirely on film.

I think Mann is a visual genious, and has put the DV to good use. If it seems like I'm back-pedaling, well...it's all in your mind. ~:?)

Mitch

[Mitch Perkins]

I say perfect...

As expected. Provocateur...~:?)

Can't wait to see it. Film is film and we all love it so this forum is going to be biased. Lets see what he does and go from there.

Good Luck

I'm going to send Lynch a copy of Sleep Always, fill him in on the M.O. used, [very similar to his], and offer to shoot and xfer anything he wants free of charge.

I'll let ya know how that goes...

Mitch

[avr]

Yeah ! the next step is to shoot with a celular telphone camera 8) welcome to freedom !

mad world :?

[Angus]

"Film is beautiful... but dead. A dinosuar. DV is very liberating. It's so straightforward to use... and it has autofocus. DV is nowhere near the quality of film. I shoot on a Sony PD-150 and the quality is *terrible*..... and I LOVE it."

- David Lynch

He uses AUTOFOCUS?

Jesus H Christ on a bike.......has the man taken a knock to the head at some point recently?