Geovane Marquez Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Would you shoot your short on a Panavision G2 35mm at 4 perfs or on the Arri Alexa? Money is not an issue at the moment. =D! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted October 19, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted October 19, 2010 Depends on the story, and the look we're going for with it, then it would be whichever system, as a whole, gets that look onto the screen in the most satisfying way. You'd have to take into account, look, locations, lenses, and distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Oliver Christoph Kochs Posted October 19, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted October 19, 2010 Oh, why oh why am i never in charge to ask such questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dom Jaeger Posted October 20, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted October 20, 2010 If money is no issue, 35mm is still the superior format, unless you really want a digital look. Arri's D-21 is actually the better comparison with 35mm film, as it was designed for feature work, different sensor with a spinning shutter/mirror and optical viewfinder etc. The Alexa is a notch down, designed more for TV work. But between you and me, if you can afford it, I reckon you'd be mad not to shoot film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Arri's D-21 is actually the better comparison with 35mm film, as it was designed for feature work, different sensor with a spinning shutter/mirror and optical viewfinder etc. The Alexa is a notch down, designed more for TV work. The RAW output Alexa would do for feature work. The jury seems to be out if the optical V/F version will come, but in other respects the Alexa is a step ahead of the D21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rose Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Well, if money isn't an issue, then I'd go for Panavision System 65! :) But to answer YOUR question, the Panavision 35mm, just because I've never shot 35, and I've CERTAINLY not shot Panavision, and I'd die to shoot both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geovane Marquez Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 Depends on the story, and the look we're going for with it, then it would be whichever system, as a whole, gets that look onto the screen in the most satisfying way. You'd have to take into account, look, locations, lenses, and distribution. The looks we are trying to perceive is a film look but that's sharp as HD. We want to show a girls skin's flaws, such as extreme acne, wrinkles etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted October 20, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted October 20, 2010 That's almost a mis-nomer as part of the "film look," has to do with it's softer feeling -v- the clinical look of HD. That being said, 35mm, slower film (100T '12 or 200T '13, or 50D) coupled with great lenses, such as Master Primes, or Ultra Primes on a film camera would look pretty spectacular and give you the "film look," which up until now really can't quite be represented in the digital realm. Of course, a lot will depend on how you choose the post this work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I think there is too much emphasis on the real film look and not enough emphasis on the real movie look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rose Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I think there is too much emphasis on the real film look and not enough emphasis on the real movie look. Because the most important thing in a film is getting "that depth of field look" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Brahem Ziryab Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 You're not just starting another film vs. digital discussion, are you? To answer your question, it depends on many things. As for the "film look", it's easy: People shot HD and make it looks like "film", but you never see people shot film and make it look like HD. So why not just shot film in the first place? Get my point? Shooting HD is always a compromise, unless there's a very specific emotional or stylistic purpose in doing it. To me, these decisions are based on the conceptuality and aesthetics of the script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aFirebird Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 You're not just starting another film vs. digital discussion, are you? To answer your question, it depends on many things. As for the "film look", it's easy: People shot HD and make it looks like "film", but you never see people shot film and make it look like HD. So why not just shot film in the first place? Get my point? Shooting HD is always a compromise, unless there's a very specific emotional or stylistic purpose in doing it. To me, these decisions are based on the conceptuality and aesthetics of the script. Totally agreed. 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