Is HD really that much better?

[Chris Walters]

It really sounds like you have a problem with composing and being skilled enough to light the entire scene. I'm not pro, but I know any good cinematographer should be able to work with whatever format, location and lights to create a beautiful image. I believe most digital filmmakers are trying to create the cine look and choose to shoot 16X9 for that reason. The only reason I would shoot 4X3 is artistic choice not because I couldn't get the framing to work. I just finished a 20 min short on a 400 dollar budget and only had two lights. 650 fresnels to be specific and it looks like any other digital short i've made with numerous lights. Instead of arguing with David I think you need to rethink your argument and realize budget or any other kind of restrictions shouldn't changed your artistic choices. You just need to find a different and sometimes better route of accomplishing your look.

 

Chris Walters

Student Cinematographer

CSUN

[Alessandro Machi]

It really sounds like you have a problem with composing and being skilled enough to light the entire scene. I'm not pro, but I know any good cinematographer should be able to work with whatever format, location and lights to create a beautiful image. I believe most digital filmmakers are trying to create the cine look and choose to shoot 16X9 for that reason. The only reason I would shoot 4X3 is artistic choice not because I couldn't get the framing to work. I just finished a 20 min short on a 400 dollar budget and only had two lights. 650 fresnels to be specific and it looks like any other digital short i've made with numerous lights. Instead of arguing with David I think you need to rethink your argument and realize budget or any other kind of restrictions shouldn't changed your artistic choices. You just need to find a different and sometimes better route of accomplishing your look.

 

Chris Walters

Student Cinematographer

CSUN

 

I don't think very highly about what you just wrote, and I cited a reference you could actually check out before opening your mouth.

[Tim O'Connor]

I think that HD is great if you want to make a movie now and it's not going to happen if

you have to buy $ all that negative but say P2 cards will get you there.

 

Get what you can and shoot. I just worked on a project with a DVX 100B (not even HD) and a

Mini-35

adapter. Then I went on to a project with an HVX-200 (DVC-PRO HD) and stock lens. Neither could

have afforded film. At the low budget end, the film costs make up a much higher percentage of the

budget than they do in a much higher budgeted production. Get good lighting (even if all you have

is a small kit look for situations where there's nice available light) good framing, art direction, sound,

writing, acting, directing,editing and a good story and your movie will be a lot more watchable than

many productions whose lens rental cost more than an independent passion movie.

 

 

 

A bit tangential: I dislike slamming anybody/anything and I hope that this won't be taken that way

but since I sat through all of "Elephant", that movie is so boring! Yeah, it's cool to see Steadicam

shots that go on for the length of a football field but showing the tedium of high school for almost the

whole movie

did not succeed in setting up how different and shocking a school shooting is in comparison. I would

rather have seen a 4x3 Mini-DV project with a decent story than this beautiful meaningless

camerawork. Maybe I don't understand the movie but how did this film win at Cannes?

 

Thanks for indulging the rant.

[Robert Houllahan]

This photo is by available window light, by the way, but whether artificially or naturally lit, the cost of lighting both shots would be the same.

 

 

This is where you have seriously made a mistake David, now that Sol Inc. has been taken over by an intergalactic conglomerate they are raising the rates on photons at an alarming clip. Clearly the use of more photons would drastically increase the costs of this frame you are shooting.

 

 

 

Rob "Injecting more ridiculousness" Houllahan :rolleyes:

[Alessandro Machi]

This is where you have seriously made a mistake David, now that Sol Inc. has been taken over by an intergalactic conglomerate they are raising the rates on photons at an alarming clip. Clearly the use of more photons would drastically increase the costs of this frame you are shooting.

Rob "Injecting more ridiculousness" Houllahan :rolleyes:

 

So everything I wrote was ridiculous.

 

I really am amazed at the continued ridiculing over other peoples experiences that get routinely displayed on this website. Maybe I shouldn't be amazed. Anyway, before anyone has to utter another idiotic comment about how 16 x 9 now saves money over 4 x 3, I lit, framed, and operated 4 interviews that are on a DVD release called "The Spirit of Comedy". They are in the "extras" section of the DVD. They perfectly illustrate how 4 x 3 in a "hybrided" environment gave just the right framing for the limited space we had to work in.

 

Once again, my point isn't that 4 x 3 is better than 16 x 9, rather that it will be easier to handle a 4 x 3 space in certain situations.

[Robert Houllahan]

So everything I wrote was ridiculous.

 

 

No I was just trying to be funny and it's and art and a craft and well one should be serious about it one should not take it so seriously.

 

There are lots of different frames you can compose for i.e. 2:35 in miniDV if thats yer happanstance every job will be priced differently. I am sure you could find a condition where a piece would cost $30m in 2:35 miniDV and one where $100k in imax however both are a stretch.

 

-Rob-

[Chris Walters]

I don't think very highly about what you just wrote, and I cited a reference you could actually check out before opening your mouth.

 

Alessandro, I appologise that was a very rude comment, and I'm not sure why I phrased it the way I did. Again I'm sorry for posting that. I agree with David in this debate, but clearly my comment was uncalled for.

 

Chris Walters