Sorry if I sound incredibly naive in my question! My technical knowledge is limited and I'm sure most of you here know a lot about this!
I want to know why films shot on 35mm that are made for the direct-to-DVD market look different from films shot on 35mm for theatrical release? For example, I just saw a horror film called ABOMINABLE which was shot on 35mm Eastmak Kodak film that's gone to direct to DVD. However, the film doesn't have the grain and appearance of film that you'd expect from 35mm, it has a sheen and gloss that looks more like video. I've seen the same thing with other movies shot on 35mm that bypass theatrical release. I thought a movie that's shot on 35mm should look the same whether it's for theatrical or DTV release. I don't mean in terms of lighting, filters etc - those are obviously aesthetic decisions made by the director and DP. I mean in terms of the visual "grain" and "texture." I read an interview with the director of ABOMINABLE in which he said, because of the low budget, they "never did make a print of the film." Does THIS explain the film's look? I always thought EVERY movie shot on 35mm has a final print. If they don't make a print, what do they do with the reels that have been shot during production? Are they developed in a normal lab?
