warzabidul

Get a fireman's hose and stand a short distance from the action, point it skywards and you've got nice rainfall.

If you use bad lighting, bad acting, bad script and more then the film's result is going to be of low quality. It would be the same with both HD or film. In a period of 9 months around two years ago I went to see over 90 films at the cinema and I don't see why those films couldn't be shot with HD rather than film. If you're shooting a teen movie then the meaning and impact of the film will not be affected by whether it was shot on film. Film should be reserved to a certain quality of film. The cinema industry is so worried about being on schedule and doing things fast, turning out films for profit that shooting HD seems a viable option. If really you want to argue about superior image quality then get yourself some 70mm film and go shoot imax movies. The image will be huge, high resolution and then there is a great difference. Is technology like HD seen as "cheap" or "amateur" compared to film? Isn't film a general term used to describe the art of story telling through pictures? Whether it is shot on tape or film the result is the same. Both tell a story. Why isn't the term movie maker moved more? We go to the movies. It doesn't matter on the method of capturing the moving image that way.

Personally with an interest more towards video I am interested by the idea of shooting in High definition video. With more and more people using the laptops to view video footage there is a growing market of people expecting higher resolutions. Checking the Atomic HD website recently they have offered for people to download free HD films to see the difference in quality. The images should be far charper. Of course the end result is not the only thing to concentrate on. I recently watched a short documentary about the green village which George Lucas used for the new star wars. What came out of this was that because the result could be seen as soon as it had been shot there was less need to keep sets up in case of re-shoots thus reducing the time a studio has a certain setup. There are already a few television programs that are experimenting with HD, for example at least one episode of coronation street if my memory is not tricking me. HD will become most interesting when consumer televisions are built to take high definition video.

George Lucas is shooting with multi camera set ups. short documentaries about how George Lucas uses two cameras for episode III

I love high resolution cameras, I'd like to see the hd images from such a camera. Having used the sony vx 2000, and pod-150 I particularly like how well they perform in low light to cameras such as the XL1 for example. although the data rate is the same the compression technology is probably different and isn't it aimed at the prosumer market rather than professional? A digibeta goes in the tens of thousands and the tapes are also far more expensive. When I get an opportunity to see images taken with the HD cameras I'll let you know what I think.

There's an interesting twist at the end but watch it and see what you think. It's not the best of the films I've seen recently

It's better than nothing and it depends on your budget and how far you slow it down.

When I went to watch it I was reminded of "The Ring". I was wondering about what makes good horror and whilst thinking of this issue I was wondering wether the fear that something could be anywhere is what makes horror films that are most effective. Does anyone have any other observations or comments on this idea?

The characters were adapted to an american version so that people may understand it. Anyway with Dilbert why bother make an american version of The Office, part of what makes it interesting to a british audience is that it's shot in Slough and at least in series two we see the difference in attitude between Slough and another city.

There are different contexts in which to use dual cameras and the context dictates the type of use of the two cameras. If you're shooting a theatre piece then one camera would be wide whilst the other one is for close ups. This way intercutting is easier. If you keep them both rolling throughout editing is greatly simplified. Problems are that you need to think of two angles, have two crews, light so that it's correct from two angles and at the editing phase you may have a lot of extra material which takes time to view before the editing. I'm sure someone else can answer in more depth.

A cheap although effective way of getting slow motion is to do it at post production with the editing software. Choose the rate at which you want to go, de-interlace the video and frame blend. By doing this extra information is added between frames to make for a much smoother slow motion than would be aquired. This method is effective and does not require the renting of any extra equipment.