John Adolfi Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Shooting super-8 has its benefits over video. of course video has its benefits over film too. Let's all chip in and state our reasons to shoot film. I'll start. The benefit of film over video is the archival ability of film to store even in less than ideal conditions ie. basement and still have excellent color and detail for many years. I recently saw my Mom's 1949 graduation prom in 8mm kodachrome. The quality of the film looked like it was shot last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddie bonfanti Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 i am going to be criticised for saying this, but OH MY GOD not another film to video discussion please. this is such a great forum but i have the feeling that we just keep talking about the same thing over and over again. film, video,hd,whatever...they are all cool tools we filmakers can use to tell a story. each one of them as something special. i cant stand this debate anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Shooting super-8 has its benefits over video. of course video has its benefits over film too. Let's all chip in and state our reasons to shoot film. I'll start. The benefit of film over video is the archival ability of film to store even in less than ideal conditions ie. basement and still have excellent color and detail for many years. I recently saw my Mom's 1949 graduation prom in 8mm kodachrome. The quality of the film looked like it was shot last week. The film program, at the university I attended years ago, was falling apart under our feet. So a few of us who were very interested in having actual careers (instead of just talking or writing about films) talked the department into letting us shoot a feature for our final 16 credits. Quite an undertaking for three guys who had mainly just video experience to draw from. The options were few at the time. 16mm wasn't an option due to cost, or so we thought at the time anyway. There definitely wasn't anything resembling HD back in 1991. Being "filmmakers" we decided to shoot the entire thing on Super8 Kodachrome 40. We borrowed some money, bought into the propaganda from Super8Sound and purchased a really expensive Beauliea sync camera and the accompanying sound recorder. We bought some old lights from some guy in Toledo and away we went. The plan was always to shoot on film, then dump to 1" for the final master. The technological obstacles alone were many, but we figured it all out and we had our feature. So, as I look back, there are a lot of things that I would have done differently with that production. With what we knew then, Super8 was definitely NOT the way to go, certainly not with the script we were shooting. The latitude was far too narrow for a newbie like me to fathom or control. I had a few nice looking shots, but those were by accident. I really didn't know what I was doing. The light meter might as well have been a nuclear reactor as I really didn't know how to measure light accurately enough for the narrow parameters that Kodachrome 40 put me under. Now? Sure, I could do it without hesitation, however it is a new world out there and if the same sort of situation arose (low budget feature film), I would more likely get an F900 rather than corner myself with Super 8 again. Everybody has their own opinions and can do what they want with it, but for me, every camera and every acquisition format is merely a tool each with its own idiosyncracies and parameters to work with. None is "better" than the other...merely different. Different tools for different circumstances. At that time under those conditions, Super 8 was our best choice and we did what we could with it. Today, some kid somewhere might decide the same. Film of any kind isn't necessarily inherently better or worse than standard def video or HD...these are all subjective arguments which are dependent upon specific circumstances. The bottom line is that you use what best serves your purpose under the given parameters at that given time. Learn the technology, whatever it happens to be, and make the best pictures you can with it. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 8, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2006 of course video has its benefits over film too. Hi, Instant and cheaper I cant think of any others! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy David Orme Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Ah, the old film vs. video/digital dialogue. It is a great dialogue, isn't it? Sure it's tiring, but really it's a dialogue I think we should embrace because no matter how we approach it, it helps us look at things differently and become more tuned in to our filmmaking beliefs. Sure there are no set answers. That's fine. That's actually what makes the conversation so interesting, the fact that there is no answer. If the there was an answer we'd simply move on without thinking about it. So, here's my answer. As for super8 goes, I'd avoid it for anything you're shooting sound on. I worked very hard to get a Nizo prepared for a shoot only to discover it was still going to be a lot more trouble than it should have to link up sound. Having a crystal sync motor is something that's important to me and aside from the quasi-sync motors provided by the film group, that's not an option. It's much easier to just step up to 16mm. As for film vs. digital in general, I'm currently voting film. However, I'm not a film snob. If digital gets better--ie, as good as film--and is as easy to shoot as it is now, I'll have no problem shooting digital. Also, if digital loses the 'fake' image I always associate with digital images I'll shoot digitally. Until then, I'm a fan of the best picture you can get. 35mm or even 16mm is still a better image than even the best HD cams. Plus, I'm just a bigger fan of grain than pixels and digital noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adolfi Posted September 8, 2006 Author Share Posted September 8, 2006 Second reason I like film. The idea of a film camera not becoming obsolete every 1-3 years. That with each imporvement in film technology your camera becomes upgraded automatically. I love that feature. PS This is not your typical digital vs. Film arguement but more of a let's embrace super8 film and tell why we choose it over mini dv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Schilling Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The look of film pleases and excites me, the look of video nausiates and bores me. thats just my primal reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Ojeil Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Without a question, dynamic range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The look of film pleases and excites me, the look of video nausiates and bores me. thats just my primal reason. Indeed, there is nothing like getting a roll or processed film back, unraveling some, and seeing a series of pictures of your beautiful house cat, rendered beautifully in Kodachrome, and know that you took that film with a 25 year old Canon camera. Super 8 is such a wholesome thing to shoot with, plain, simple and honest. Matthew Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 the look of video nausiates and bores me. thats just my primal reason. You know, for a long time, that's the feeling I got from looking at crappy 16mm and some 35mm shot in the 1960s and 1970s. It all looked "rough," grainy, and overly yellow. And those are studio features I'm remembering! Even some features from the '80s look "flat" to me still. Film isn't an across the board "miracle" as many like to claim. It can look just as shi**y as video from Aunt Marge's 80th birthday party while HD in the hands of a professional can rival almost anything shot today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris dye Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I'm too in love with film. Nothing wrong with video, but I can't bring myself to make a movie on 'video'. Sorry. I don't let the cost of something stop me from doing something I really want to do (and that's make a movie and have it look like a movie). HD video is looking great these days and it's getting harder to tell whether it's film or video right away (Click surprised me), especially from cameras like the Genesis. As a matter of fact, sometimes even film itself these days looks too clean and glossy. Like M. Night Shymalan, I, too, think video is too clean and glossy looking. I prefer the 70's look. Funny how some people dislike the look of movies from the 60's and 70's, but I love it. I grew up on that (maybe that's why). It's got a slight 'grit' and grain to it, but you can still tell when something's shot on 35mm from those days. I love the horror genre and I simply can't imagine shooting a horror movie on video. Half the fun of watching a Hammer movie or Mario Bava movie is the look of it. I shot a little horror film on Super 8 about ten years ago. Nothing great. I cringe at the acting and script, but I LOVE looking at it. I shot in the fall and seeing the trees blowing in the wind on grainy Super 8 is cool. It helps with the 'atmosphere'. It's exactly what I was going for in terms of the look. It just wouldn't look the same on video (even 'filmlooked' video or HD). Super 8 looks cool, but I don't shoot on it anymore because the cost is so close to 16mm that I feel it's more worth it to simply shoot 16mm. (I own a NIZO 6080 and a Frezzolini LW-16 news camera. Both take outstanding pictures. These old cameras blow away any state of the art DV camera out there). I remember reading about Robert Rodriguez comparing film and video. He felt his HD camera was like a Ferrari and a film camera was a Volkswagen or something. I don't see it that way because I'm sure that the HD camera he purchased then has since been 'upgraded' or even outright replaced and film cameras remain the same and are STILL superior in image capture. Which is the real Ferrari? All these guys who were shooting movies on standard DV a few years ago and were saying how great it looked and how it looked like film (which I vehemently disagreed with) have probably since jumped to HDV and saying how much better it is than standard DV. But those old Arri's and CP-16's are still chugging along producing better images than those cameras can ever hope to. Soon some other better video technology will come along and they'll jump on that band wagon and guess what? Those old film cameras will still give them a run for their money. Ironic too that all the film haters out there (and there's a growing number of them really because of the expense of film not the look of it) try so desperately to make their video look like film (the format they seemingly want to die a quick death because the expense prevented them from making a movie apparently). Just because video looks like film and is cheap and 'easy' to use, doesn't mean it's better. I'd rather go through the trouble of shooting film because at least then I don't have to go through the trouble of making it look like film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_gonzo Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 All I can say is you get what you pay for. HD can be a great tool when used properly ie: hard candy...but film just does it for me compared to the instant gratification of video. There is something to be said about shooting a film, sending the negative to the lab and waiting a week to see your images. I worked on a Hammer style horror feature last summer that shot on HD. The images looked nice, but it was just missing so much of the style it was trying to emulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 All I can say is you get what you pay for. HD can be a great tool when used properly ie: hard candy...but film just does it for me compared to the instant gratification of video. There is something to be said about shooting a film, sending the negative to the lab and waiting a week to see your images. I worked on a Hammer style horror feature last summer that shot on HD. The images looked nice, but it was just missing so much of the style it was trying to emulate. Sounds like "film" people just dig waiting more than the film itself. :) I'm not much one for waiting around when I don't have to. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_gonzo Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Sounds like "film" people just dig waiting more than the film itself. :) I'm not much one for waiting around when I don't have to. But that's just me. Hah yes I love waiting..... the instant gratification of video just takes the magic out of waiting a couple of days in anticipation of what you have shot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Tripodi Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 When I hold the film to the light, I can see little tiny pictures. I can?t see anything when I hold the tape to the light. I?ve conducted this test several times with the same results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Hah yes I love waiting..... the instant gratification of video just takes the magic out of waiting a couple of days in anticipation of what you have shot.... Magic? Who wants to wait to see if something went wrong? What does that cost to keep sets up, call people back, answer to "suits" who want to know what happened..... Magic? Whatever. I won't argue that film looks different than video and in many instances is a more appropriate choice given the subject matter, but I've never understood this "romantic" notion thrown over the process. You turn the camera on, light hits whatever is "recording" the image, and you see what happened, either immediately or the next day. Period. It's an objective technical process no matter what format is being used. I don't buy for a moment that if a cameraman could see his film immediately, he wouldn't do it for the "magic" of "anticipation." C'mon. :rolleyes: We wait for film because we HAVE to, because the process takes a relatively "long" time, not because everybody craves the "magic" of "anticipation." I understand people not choosing video or HD because they aren't partial to that look, but demeaning the format because of it being inherently instantaneous is a red-herring argument that means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_gonzo Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Last I checked you can get next day dailies at any lab.... More craft goes into shooting on film, and an experienced person will get it right the first time. Video is a good tool, but if your serious about having a nice looking film why bother with video. Especially considering that renting an HD camera can cost MORE than renting a nice S16 camera. I understand people not choosing video or HD because they aren't partial to that look, but demeaning the format because of it being inherently instantaneous is a red-herring argument that means nothing. I also wasnt demeaning video because its an instant result like a polaroid...I've just seen far too many DP's take the short cut in lighting for video with the age old excuse "we can fix it in post". It seems like there are far too many point and shoot camera ops passing themselves off as DP's these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Last I checked you can get next day dailies at any lab.... True. I don't remember anyone saying that you can't. The guy above said that it took two days. He should try a different lab. ;) I think the point he was trying to make is that there is some kind of special "magic" (whatever that means) in the "anticipation" of waiting for the final product, as if it were a Christmas present to be unwrapped. Great, if somebody gets a thrill out of wondering if he shot it right or f***ked up, that's his business. But I was making the point that I'm sure that everyone involved would feel a whole lot better if they could walk away from a setup KNOWING that they have it instead of just hoping that it all turned out okay. HD gives the Director, the DP, the Operator, and the Focus Puller that assurance right away that they "got it." And I was suggesting that if film gave that same kind of instantaneous feedback, I'm sure that nobody would turn it away because they are so in love with the "magic of anticipation." It's a nonsensical argument meant to suggest that video shooters can be hacks because they get instant feedback and don't have to know what they're doing. More craft goes into shooting on film, and an experienced person will get it right the first time. More craft? What's that supposed to mean? Define "craft" and how "film" inherently demands more of this "craft" than shooting video does. Please. An experienced cameraman of any kind shooting on any format will get it right the first time. Again, I don't understand why it is anymore true with film than with video. A cameraman has to get it right the first time no matter what format he is using. Video is a good tool, but if your serious about having a nice looking film why bother with video. Especially considering that renting an HD camera can cost MORE than renting a nice S16 camera. Theres's the question. Why bother with video? I don't know. There are many reasons to choose one format over another. Why bother shooting 16mm when 35mm is obviously better? In the side by side comparisons I've seen, HDCAM looks superior to any 16mm. Varicam is on par with 16mm which is why you don't see many features being shot with it, I guess. I also wasnt demeaning video because its an instant result like a polaroid...I've just seen far too many DP's take the short cut in lighting for video with the age old excuse "we can fix it in post". It seems like there are far too many point and shoot camera ops passing themselves off as DP's these days. Funny, I've seen the same "fix it in post" attitude with film cameramen as well. In fact, I think a valid argument can be made that because film has so much latitude, that any hack with a pulse can shoot film because it is so forgiving. On the other hand, because of the relative lack of latitude in video, it takes more care and attention to achieve a quality image. If a cameraman is relatively inexperienced and "misses" a proper exposure by a stop or two in film, it doesn't matter as the filmstock will save him from himself and it can be "fixed in post," but in HD or standard def, the cameraman has to make better choices because the parameters are so tight. In the 18 years I've been shooting video, I can't recall any instance where a "mistake" on set could be "fixed" in post. A few minor adjustments in brightness, contrast, and color can be made, but for the most part, if you've blown out the highlights, that's it. There's no "fixing in post" as you are implying. I have no idea where you came up with that idea. I do wonder if this blanket generalization about "video" guys has any basis in reality or if it is just an assumed "fact" in order to demean the format for whatever reason someone might have. Yeah, news guys and tabloid shows point and shoot because that's their job and the final product doesn't require any more than that. But I've seen plenty of point and shoot scenarios in film with Operators just flipping the switch...typically those are Day Exteriors on "action" shots where all that is needed is an exposure. Again, this attitude that all video operators are hacks who just "point and shoot" and no film guys are like that is a myth perpetuated in order to keep this "romance" of film alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_gonzo Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 *"But I was making the point that I'm sure that everyone involved would feel a whole lot better if they could walk away from a setup KNOWING that they have it instead of just hoping that it all turned out okay. HD gives the Director, the DP, the Operator, and the Focus Puller that assurance right away that they "got it." * I believe this is why monitors, video taps, and clamshell recorders were also invented. *More craft? What's that supposed to mean? Define "craft" and how "film" inherently demands more of this "craft" than shooting video does. Please. An experienced cameraman of any kind shooting on any format will get it right the first time. Again, I don't understand why it is anymore true with film than with video.* It also seems to me that if you learn by lighting film and then move to shooting video you will have a better product since you will know much much much more about cutting lighting, achieving your stops, etc to break up the endless depth of field that video and HD yield. It is true that its much harder to make video look as good as film, there are a few who have done it and my hats off to them. But until there is a process that can replicate light hitting emulsion properly ill stick with film stock for the projects i fund for myself. This debate is essentially pointless because both these mediums have their drawbacks and strengths.... IMO the only filmmaker that is really doing anything interesting with video is Hal Hartley. He's shooting these microbudget features on older cameras that look more beautiful than anything shot with George Lucas's latest gadget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted September 9, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 9, 2006 When I was racing sportscars (Lightweight Racing Elan amongst others) the difference between winning and fifth place was often 15 seconds or less after a half hour or more of racing. You couldn't fix a spin-out in post, you couldn't take a peak at the video village to see how your tires were, you got it right, or you went home with an empty checkbook and a car to fix. Anything that appears easy in life invariably draws a throng of wannabe's who really don't understand just how difficult perfection truly is. I could tell many stories of people showing up at the track with "racecars" that in truth were a street car with a roll bar and racing tires on it. Let me tell you about the time on a twisty track in Wisconsin that I blew off a 427 CID Corvette in practice driving my first racecar, a 60 CID Bugeye Sprite. I had a racecar, he had a big engined toy sled. The reason the film troops often can turn out better work is that they've had to learn how to do it right everytime. The real pros can, and do, shoot video but they learned the craft and art the old fashioned way: shooting film and waiting for dailies - and knowing that fixing it in post was much more expensive than knowing their equipment, emulsions, and how to read a lightmeter. My inventory? Sony TRV-30 Panasonic PV-DV53 Arriflex 2A/C Nizo 4056 The Sony is nice for a quick play projects, the Panasonic is for B cam and playback, the Arriflex is for getting it right, and the Nizo is my new play toy - eat poop miniDV! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 *"But I was making the point that I'm sure that everyone involved would feel a whole lot better if they could walk away from a setup KNOWING that they have it instead of just hoping that it all turned out okay. HD gives the Director, the DP, the Operator, and the Focus Puller that assurance right away that they "got it." * I believe this is why monitors, video taps, and clamshell recorders were also invented. I'm not so sure about that. Except for an HD movie, I've never witnessed a DP referencing the monitor to judge lighting or focus. Those things, in my experience anyway, are meant as a way for the Director to "see" the frame for reference to blocking and performance. *More craft? What's that supposed to mean? Define "craft" and how "film" inherently demands more of this "craft" than shooting video does. Please. An experienced cameraman of any kind shooting on any format will get it right the first time. Again, I don't understand why it is anymore true with film than with video.* It also seems to me that if you learn by lighting film and then move to shooting video you will have a better product since you will know much much much more about cutting lighting, achieving your stops, etc to break up the endless depth of field that video and HD yield. I see. From what you're saying above, it has less to do with the technology in and of itself and more to do with the subject matter being shot. For instance, when shooting a narrative, one generally takes the time to build sets, and light them anyway they choose to in contrast to "traditional" video production which (as you see it) requires only that someone can look through the viewfinder and pull the trigger. There was a time in the past when news cameramen ran film through a gate too. Your assumption has less to do with the technology and more about what people tend to use each medium for. That said, it still stands to reason that someone shooting film has less to worry about overall in terms of controlling light and depth of field than someone who learns with video because film is so forgiving and video is not. It doesn't take a genius to keep the dop down in film, but it takes some amount of know-how to achieve the same effect with video. So which type of cameraman "seems" to be "better" with that in mind? It is true that its much harder to make video look as good as film, there are a few who have done it and my hats off to them. But until there is a process that can replicate light hitting emulsion properly ill stick with film stock for the projects i fund for myself. That's your choice and you're entitled to it. :) I don't think anyone would argue with that choice for any reason. Video is different from film (not necessarily worse or better) and if the look of film is what one wants, and the budget allows for it, then no argument here. :) This debate is essentially pointless because both these mediums have their drawbacks and strengths.... That's the first I've heard anyone concede that film isn't bulletproof and inherently superior to video. As I've suggested, they both have their individual idiocyncrasies and parameters to consider when making the choice of which to shoot with. Sometimes film is the better choice, but sometimes video is. It's all circumstantial. IMO the only filmmaker that is really doing anything interesting with video is Hal Hartley. He's shooting these microbudget features on older cameras that look more beautiful than anything shot with George Lucas's latest gadget. Way back when in college, I was taking a cheese-ball class called Visual Communications Technology. Pretty worthless, but one of our assignments was to shoot a minute long "short" on video. This was all pretty low grade VHS at the time too. Not satisfied to just "point and shoot" because I'd already been working "professionally" at the nearby PBS station, I borrowed an Arri light kit and lit the living sh** out of every interior I had. What I discovered was that even standard definition "home video" can look surprisingly good in terms of sharpness and color when A) you pour adequate light on the frame and B ) you use things like tripods and don't zoom incessantly. I think that "home video" gets a bad wrap because most people using it are amateurs who don't know (or care) how to create a nice frame and they don't use adequate lighting. That's most people with a video camera though, which while true, somehow unfairly is carried over to professionals who DO take the time to light, control the light, and create the best frames properly. Video isn't the problem...it's those who use it without understanding it that create a bad reputation for it. A film camera in the hands of an amateur will turn out images just as poor as if they had a video camera in their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 The reason the film troops often can turn out better work is that they've had to learn how to do it right everytime. Having worked quite a bit in both worlds, I'll disagree with that conclusion. The reason that film troops turn out "better" work more often is because they are given the A) time B ) money C ) equipment and D ) personnel to perfect (at least try to anyway) the frame. It isn't that "video" cameramen haven't learned the "right way" to do things, it's that because of the inherent nature of the projects that video is typically used for, the two-person crew (Videographer/Audio) aren't given the A) time B ) money C ) equipment and D ) personnel to accomplish what they wish to. I definitely give my all to every shot I take, but sometimes what I shoot isn't anything I'd want to put on a reel simply because I'm not given two 40' trucks full of all the gadgets I should have or 4 Grips, 4 Electrics, and a Camera crew to help. I know what it takes, but I don't get those luxuries so I have to fight to achieve the same level of quality with far less. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that I (or others) aren't trying or don't know "how to do it right." You've made an assumption that video people haven't had to learn the "right" way to do things. Perhaps some, but not all, and certainly, as I've said before, film is so forgiving, that just about anybody can be rescued from their mistakes due to the latitude of negative stock, but video has such tight parameters that one doesn't have that kind of leeway and had better know what he's doing the first time. The real pros can, and do, shoot video but they learned the craft and art the old fashioned way: shooting film and waiting for dailies - and knowing that fixing it in post was much more expensive than knowing their equipment, emulsions, and how to read a lightmeter. Okay, but you're assuming that "video" that is shot poorly is automatically "fixed" in post without regard to time or cost. If anything, again due to the nature of what video is typically used for, the very last thing a video producer is going to do is take the time and spend the money to "fix" something in post. The last time I sat in on an on-line session to "guide" or "correct" the final product was never. Film DPs, on the other hand, are given the luxury of DI or timing sessions after the fact as well as seeing dailies and having the opportunity to reshoot if absolutely necessary. That stuff almost never happens in the video world. Again, the "arguments" being made have almost nothing to do with the technology itself and far more to do with the types of projects being produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Schilling Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 We wait for film because we HAVE to, because the process takes a relatively "long" time, not because everybody craves the "magic" of "anticipation." There are those who do it because they love it, and those who do it because they have to. I think the fun would definatley be lost on a big production... utilitatrian with tech protocols set for the boring masses. one reason why almost every Hollywood flick is cliche' and sucky... even the stories have a formula. I'd rather watch Super 8 of someones cat. Personally, with modern stocks... I don't like anything higher resolve than S16. 35mm is too glossy for me as well, and HD just has no element of mysique to me what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jonathan Benny Posted September 9, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 9, 2006 I don't like anything higher resolve than S16. 35mm is too glossy for me as well, How glossy 35 or 16 looks is more an issue related to lighting, exposure, development and printing/transferring. no? AJB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Dzyak Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 How glossy 35 or 16 looks is more an issue related to lighting, exposure, development and printing/transferring. no? AJB I can't remember who said it or where I read it, but I remember some Director commenting a long time ago about how he'd have to "degrade" the work that came out of ILM because it looked "too good" compared to the rest of the movie that had been shot. ILM wanted to deliver a very high quality product on its own, but tended to forget that what they were doing was meant to match a lot of film that they didn't shoot. So this question of "glossiness" just goes to prove that film isn't inherently "better" than video, but that different people have different expectations and preferences for what they'd like their product to look like. I've read in this very forum that some cameramen prefer the look of older stocks while some prefer the newer. And in some circles, cameramen actually prefer the look of HD. So there is no "better" format than another. They are all just different with different looks and capabilities for different circumstances. Add to that that there are some very skilled cameramen and some very crappy cameramen shooting both film and video. You work with what you have and you make it the very best that it can be given the circumstances. That's all any of us can do with anything in life. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now