Jump to content

Sandra Merkatz

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Sandra Merkatz

  • Rank

  • Birthday 12/08/1985

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Austria

Recent Profile Visitors

2798 profile views
  1. Thank you for your answers! If I understood that correctly, then it is rather unlikely (at least for large, expensive productions), that the editor works completely on his own and determines how long a scene lasts, how long a take lasts, etc., on his own. My idea was this: a film is shot and the footage is sent to the editor, who then sits alone in front of his computer and edits the film without consulting the director or producer. But is the editor's job still an artistic job when everyone can tell him how to edit? Is he not just a tool of the director and the producer? Greetings, Sandra
  2. Hello! :) After having dealt extensively with the topic of lighting, I am now interested in the work of the editor. What I'm particularly interested in here is whether editors generally work alone on films (even big Hollywood productions), or whether they collaborate with the director or other people. There are also so-called "director cuts", and this term suggests that the director is not involved in the editor's work, or has no say in it. In the credits, usually only one name is mentioned as editor, and not additionally the name of the director or producer. So my question is: what does an editor's work usually look like? Does he decide everything alone? Greetings, Sandra
  3. Thank you :) I was unsecure because of things like "Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)". I´m not into all that stuff, I don´t know all those different systems, cameras, lenses, film stocks, etc., but I´m very interested, how a film was shot, and what kind of material they used. For example, I found another modern movie that was shot with the "Red Weapon Dragon". I searched after it, and that is clearly a digital camera with no celluloid used. But in this case (Death Proof) I was not sure! Greetings, Sandra
  4. Hello! :) I recently bought the movie Death Proof (2007) on BluRay and watched it yesterday. Since I was interested in whether the film was digitally recorded or whether a real film reel was used for it, I went to Imdb to find out. Unfortunately I don't understand the technical data there. Maybe one of you can tell me whether the film was shot digitally or not? Camera: Arriflex 435 ES, Panavision Primo Lenses Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo Lenses Panavision Panaflex Millennium, Panavision Primo Lenses Negative Format: 35 mm (Fuji Eterna 500T 8573) Cinematographic Process: Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) Super 35 (3-perf) (source format) Printed Film Format: 35 mm (Fuji) Thanks for you help :) Greetings, Sandra
  5. Hello! :) I'm not a huge fan of Ridley Scott's 1985 movie “Legend”, but I've always liked the Dress Waltz scene (as well as Tim Curry´s performance as “Darkness”). In this scene, Darkness tries to seduce Princess Lily to get her onto the dark side by sending her a black, beautiful but somehow creepy dress, and making her dance with the dress. At first Lily is afraid, but the dress seduces her and makes her dance with it. I like this scene very much, the atmosphere, the mood, the acting, the music, the colors... (By the way, I prefer the European Cut to the American Cut because it lasts longer and I like the music of Jerry Goldsmith a bit better than that of the German band Tangerine Dream. But both versions have their advantages and disadvantages.) Now I have seen some videos on YouTube on the topic "How to block a scene", and also other videos about picture composition, camera movement etc. And now I don't enjoy the scene from "Legend" anymore, because I always feel like I'm missing interesting details! That's why I wanted to ask you if you could say a few words about it? Please don't get me wrong, I don't expect a detailed analysis of this scene, just a few thoughts, a few hints on how the camera is moved, how the scene or some shots are blocked. Maybe you can tell me which shots are well done, and why. And which shots are not that good, and why. I am happy about every answer I get :-) Here is the video (the dance sequence starts at 1:45): Greetings, Sandra
  6. Sandra Merkatz

    Actors

    Michael Caine recently said in an interview something like this: "If the audience watch my movie and says ´Isn´t Michael Caine a wonderful actor?´, then I have done it all wrong. If the audience says ´I wonder what will happen next to XY, then I have done it right". But I´m not sure if I can agree with that. My "problem" is: whenever I watch a movie - no matter which one - I always see a couple of actors doing their job, and not the characters they portray. I don´t think that the actors are to blame here, but I don´t think I am to blame either. When you watch a movie like "Raging Bull", do you really see the character Jake LaMotta? Or do you see Robert DeNiro doing a great job, do you see the character, or do you see DeNiro acting? Do you think "Wow, LaMotta is really fat", or do you think "Wow, great method acting by De Niro"?
  7. Sorry for the double post, I couldn´t edit the previous one! I have another technical question: let´s pretend you do the exact same shot (same angle, same lighting, same object, etc.) with an HD camera and with a celluloid camera (of course a good one!). Which one can show more details?
  8. Thank you :) I was puzzled by the mention of "35 mm" and thought that maybe they mean the celluloid. Why do they use these cameras? Do they show more details then "celluloid cameras"? Or is it because they want a certain look that can´t be produced with film stock?
  9. Hello! I just saw "Sin City 2" on Blu-ray, and was interested how they shoot it, so I looked in Imdb and found this info: Camera: Arri Alexa M, Fujinon Premier Cabrio Lenses Printed Film Format: 35 mm (spherical) (Fuji), D-Cinema (also 3-D version) I don´t know any of them, but I wonder if they shoot that movie with digital camers (without negatives, without celluloid) or not. Maybe someone can help me? :) Greetings, Sandra
  10. I am surprised to read that! I only know the DVD and the Blu-rays, which were all bad. I´m curious how the 4K version looks and if they release it in Europe too. (But I won´t buy it, because there will still be this ridiculous censored scene - I guess you know which one I mean - and this scene is censored on every version. So I wouldn´t recommend it, except when the scene is uncensored now). Greetings, Sandra
  11. I want to add, "The Vampire Lovers" also has a little "insider"-joke. In the movie "Fearless Vampire Killers" by Roman Polanski, Ferdy Mayne played the main vampire who bites the woman. In VL, he plays a good guy, who gets bitten by the main female vampire. I think that was done intentionally, to switch the roles here. :) Greetings, Sandra
  12. I´m sorry, but doesn´t this discussion about Star Wars fit better into a new thread? :)
  13. I don´t want to go too much off topic, I´ll just answer your last reply in this thread if that´s ok for you :) I know about the loudness war, it´s horrible how they turn up the volume or the basses just to sound "modern" or whatever. I´m always very careful when a cover says "Remastered" ... however, I usually only buy classical music on CDs, and only then when it´s performed on period instruments in historic informed performances (HIP), there you don´t have that loudness war, at least I don´t see one. Of course we have different opinions in some topics, for example CGI, because I think a film should be made with a camera, not a computer, but that´s ok - let´s agree to disagree :) To return to the topic: it´s hard for the interested viewer to find out what Blu-ray did it right. Who knows what colors or lighting are correct? And the correct light and color is VERY important for a movie. It´s the same problem with HIP-CDs, by the way. I don´t want to buy a CD and just listen to it, I also want to know what instruments they used, if the conductor studied different sources, and to what conclusions he came. Usually in newer recordings they write about this, but it´s not easy to have fun with a movie or a piece of music if you are more interested in it. Since I read Michael Caines book, I´ll never see a movie without thinking about how it has been made. I just see actors now doing their hard job, tryin to make it look as if everything is natural and normal, trying to hide the fact that they probably waited for many hours to shoot this scene. And since I knew a little bit more about lighting (also thanks to the members here :) ), I begin to pause scenes and try to find out what they did. I ask myself, what do I see? What do I not see? What could be the intentions? But when a Blu-ray shows a movie in a wrong way, it´s hard to analyze anything, because I want to analyze the work of the director, not the failures of the movie company. Greetings, Sandra
  14. I just don´t buy Blu-rays that destroy the picture, and I don´t buy them when I have doubts whether the picture is correct or not. And: I don´t want to give the companies my money for what they have done, and support them. What´s up with the famous movie "La Strada"? Look at the difference between the UK and the JP- version. Maybe the director wanted it to be so dark, to have that intimacy, that mood, and the other BD is too bright. Or he wanted it to be bright, and the other BD is too dark and sets the wrong mood. As long as I don´t know which one is right (or if neither of them is right) I wouldn´t buy it. Who or what is "Bazin"? Greetings, Sandra
  15. I think the main problem is, that they use DNR to remove the GRAIN, because they think, it doesn´t look "modern" enough, or grain is some dirt. I absolutely don´t have a problem with removing dirt; for example, they did a wonderful job for the Indiana Jones movies on DVD, cleaned frame by frame, but they didn´t use DNR. When you remove the grain, you lost picture information, so the DNR-program has to "blur" it in order to fill the missing spots. That´s why so many details are lost on those Blu-rays. Speaking of Indiana Jones: "IJ and the Temple of Doom" and "IJ and the Last Crusade" are good on Blu-ray, but I hesitate to buy "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on BD, because I´m not sure if they changed the color. Look at these examples, a comparison between the old DVD and the BD: The Blu-ray looks too bright and artificial to me. Just some torches with small fire, and so much light? The DVD looks better to me. In this case I´m not sure too which one is correct. Indy is in a dark cave, the only light comes from a torch, but which one is correct? The BD-version looks too bright for me, and there are some details missing. Also, notice that the frame is smaller on both sides. (And notice the great picture quality on the DVD! That´s what you get when you only put the movie on the disc in order to minimize the compression. Of course you see the compression on the big screen and in close ups, but the IJ-DVDs are one of the best I know. The strange thing is, that the Blu-rays for part 2 and 3 are identical with the DVDs, no different colors. Greetings, Sandra
×
×
  • Create New...