info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MT VOID, 02/19/16 -- Vol. 34, No. 34, Whole Number 1898 [long]
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Evelyn Leeper
Feb 25, 2016, 10:34:59 AM2/25/16
to
THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/19/16 -- Vol. 34, No. 34, Whole Number 1898
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mle...@optonline.net
Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, ele...@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-s...@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-un...@yahoogroups.com
The latest issue is at <http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm>.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
<http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm>.
Topics:
Digital Backlash (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
ADMIRAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
"Almost" (letter of comment by Charles S. Harris)
Charitable Investments (letter of comment
by Leland R. Beaumont)
Mars Rover (letter of comment by Philip Chee)
This Week's Reading (THE WOMAN WHO WALKED IN SUNSHINE
and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY) (book and film comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Digital Backlash (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
As just about everybody knows, digital technology is now used more
than traditional film technology in the movie production industry.
A very large piece of the entertainment industry has seen the
advantages of digital recording over analog. Major movies are now
being shot in digital and sound is also recorded on video. With
digital recording a picture is broken up into very tiny pixels and
the content of each pixel is recorded as a series of 1s and 0s.
Those digits can easily be stored, processed, and manipulated by
electronic means. The adept of digital technology has a great deal
of power and freedom in processing information stored on a computer
and which can be sent over a telephone line. Digital movies can
be made very inexpensively with an advantage that the market is
much more inviting for neophyte filmmakers and low-budget
production companies. Some people are even making short movies on
their cell phones.
The quality of digital images improves with time. There was a time
when it was easy to look at a film and see problems with boundaries
of moving objects in the image and they would not look quite right.
But the answer to image problems was in large part just to increase
the number of digits stored.
The same revolution has hit the music industry. I was surprised to
see in my local bookstore a rack of vinyl records being sold again.
And they were being sold at much higher prices than I used to pay
for vinyl records. There are people who can hear, or think they can
hear, imperfections in digital recordings of music that the
original performance or an analog recording did not have. To be
perfectly candid, I myself cannot hear the flaws some people detect
in digital recordings. But I do not have a trained ear. Now
people who can hear the difference are going back to collecting
recordings on vinyl.
Now I see that Colin Trevorrow, who has been chosen to direct the
next "Star Wars" film, says that it will be shot on film, not in
digital. I take it that STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS was shot
digitally and Trevorrow thinks that digital photography just did
not stand up to real film. I can say I did not consciously notice
any difference, but it will probably make for a better image.
Digital technology no doubt will be used to create a lot of the
visual images anyway.
I can see some advantages for filmmakers to go back to film for a
while longer (or for some even permanently).
1) Shooting in digital is very cost-effective and also much faster.
But it is tempting to just do a lot of shooting and hope a few
shots will be really good. Shooting on film is more expensive and
that can be a virtue. Shooting must be more carefully planned.
2) There are already a lot of experienced craftsmen around who know
how to use film very effectively. Not everybody in the industry
knows digital technology yet, but the experts do know how to
effectively create subtle images on film.
3) Film is physical. You can feel it in your hand. It does not go
away if a battery dies. That adds a level of satisfaction.
4) Digital imagery divides an image up in discrete pixels. That
makes each little point of light an approximation of what it should
be. It can be a very close approximation, but it will never be
precisely right.
STAR WARS: EPISODE 4 [A NEW HOPE] was the first film to really go
heavily into digital special effects. As Wikipedia: Digital
Cinematography says, "In May 1999 George Lucas challenged the
supremacy of the movie-making medium of film for the first time by
including footage filmed with high-definition digital cameras in
STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE. The digital footage
blended seamlessly with the footage shot on film and he announced
later that year he would film its sequels entirely on hi-def
digital video." Now that the property belongs to Disney the next
"Star Wars" film will be going back to being shot on film. That is
ironic. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: ADMIRAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is the epic biopic of the career of Dutch naval hero
Michiel Ruyter who fought against the English and the French in the
second and third Anglo-Dutch wars, 1665 to 1673. It features
several exciting cannon battles between ships. The filmmakers
frequently create spectacular visual effects using CGI like it was
meant to be used. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
[The film is in Dutch, English, and French with subtitles where
they are needed.]
I never much was interested in the French and Indian Wars when they
taught it in school. I suppose I could not identify with the
people fighting or picture the conflict. Then I saw the film THE
LAST OF THE MOHICANS and I was hooked. It always seemed to me that
history should be taught at least in part on the movie screen.
Films should be used to make historical times come alive for
students. The Dutch film ADMIRAL has been made in two versions.
One is for general release and one has less sex and violence for
showing in schools. And I think it will work wonders to involve
students in history. It is, after all, an exciting ride, even if it
does not always get its history correct. As a Hornblower fan I
would rather see two ships from the Age of Sail battling in than
see two superheroes fighting each other. Particularly since along
the way I am learning a little about real history. Not that the
history is necessarily 100% accurate, but one learns the issues and
gets an idea of the times.
ADMIRAL (a.k.a. MICHIEL DE RUYTER) is the story of Dutch Admiral
Michiel de Ruyter's career over what appears to be several months,
but historically was several years. The film begins and within
minutes we are on the shore at Scheveningen watching a battle on
the North Sea. De Ruyter (played by Frank Lammers) proves himself
to be an excellent commander and when Dutch Lieutenant-Admiral
Tromp (Rutger Hauer) is killed, de Ruyter is chosen to replace him.
We then are presented the story of de Ruyter's naval victories.
There is a re-creation of the Four Days' Battle that is explosive
even if it does not give a good summary of the battle. In the real
world the battle ended with the British retreating to the safety of
the Thames and de Ruyter blockading the Thames for fifty-one days
before being forced to retreat. In the ADMIRAL dramatization, de
Ruyter simply returns home after the battle.
The reason the film gives for the wars was that the Dutch had a
republic and the royalty of England did not want that egalitarian
idea to spread. Inside the Netherlands the Orangists and the
Republicans join forces temporarily to defend the Netherlands from
the English, but the monarchist Orangists and the Republicans were
still tearing their own country apart in a political conflict
verging on civil war. Though battle scenes are featured, the film
is as much about political strife in the Netherlands at the time.
De Ruyter is dragged into the internal conflict of the Orangists
who wanted a king and the Republicans who had a more democratic
vision.
In the version I saw there is nudity and some torture is depicted.
I assume I saw the general release version. The dialog talks down
a little to the viewers who are intended in large part to be school
students, but it pays the viewer back in thrilling visual images.
The film uses rather obvious CGI, but the complexity and intensity
of battle could be done no other way without a much bigger budget.
The cast of the film is almost entirely Dutch and consists mostly
of what were for me unfamiliar faces. Two exceptions are Rutger
Hauer as Tromp, a Dutch Naval hero, but he is on the screen for
only a short time. The other is Charles Dance, who does sinister
oh-so-well, as fans of GAME OF THRONES can attest. Dance plays
reprobate English king Charles II, though he is much older than the
historical Charles would have been.
People seem to be awed just by the trailer for ADMIRAL (I know I
was) and the film does live up to the trailer. The trailer can be
seen at the address below. Though the trailer gives the impression
that this is predominately an English language production, it is
mostly in Dutch. ADMIRAL will be on VOD and iTunes on February 23
and in theaters March 11. I rate it a high +2 on the -4 to +4
scale or 8/10.
Film Credits:
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2544766/combined>
What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/admiral_2016/>
Trailer:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iylP5nJqkMU>
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: "Almost" (letter of comment by Charles S. Harris)
In response to Evelyn's comments on "The Greek Interpreter" in the
02/12/16 issue of the MT VOID, Charles S. Harris writes:
You wrote, "I'm not sure I would call an hour and forty minutes
'almost two hours.'"
But you also said, "'Nero Wolfe' has almost all its letters in
common with 'Sherlock Holmes'
100/120 = .8333+
6/9 = .6666+
So there's almost a blatant inconsistency here. [-csh]
Evelyn responds:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am
large, I contain multitudes.
Seriously, the first one doesn't *feel* like "almost" to me and the
second one does. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Charitable Investments (letter of comment by Leland
R. Beaumont)
In response to Mark's comments on charitable investments in the
02/12/16 issue of the MT VOID, Lee Beaumont writes:
A good site for researching the best place for charity giving is
<http://www.givewell.org/>.
They list their top charities at
<http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities>. [-lrb]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Mars Rover (letter of comment by Philip Chee)
In response to Steve Milton's comments on the Mars rover in the
02/12/16 issue of the MT VOID, Philip Chee writes:
The NASA engineers also noticed that the Martian winds, slight as
they are, are capable of blowing the dust off the solar panels.
They took advantage of this by orienteering the rover to maximize
the effect of those winds. [-pc]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE WOMAN WHO WALKED IN SUNSHINE by Alexander McCall Smith (ISBN
978-0-307-91156-8) is number sixteen in the "No. 1 Ladies'
Detective Agency" series and it is pretty much more of the same.
We do get to see that Mma Makutsi has matured, but that is about
the only change. And I am getting tired of Violet Sephotho being
dragged in as the evil villain in every book. Even Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle mentioned Moriarty in only seven stories, and he was an
active character in only two ("The Final Problem" and THE VALLEY OF
FEAR).
SEVEN DAYS IN MAY by Fletcher Knebel and John Bailey (ISBN 978-0-
553-131697) was chosen for our film-and-book discussion group.
Well, it is marginally science fiction, supposedly taking place
about a dozen years after it was written. In fact, it might be
considered a proto-techno-thriller, though the "techo" level is
pretty low. The film hews fairly closely to the book, although it
drops a few characters: in the book Jiggs Casey is married with a
family, and the person involved with Scott is a friend of Eleanor
Holbrook, not Eleanor herself. The entire Yakutsk subplot has also
been dropped.
A couple of items jumped out. It is mentioned in passing that
someone had $1500 in deductions disallowed, so owed $1000 more in
income tax. We forget that there used to be 67% (and higher) tax
brackets. Also, when Lyman is presented with some incriminating
documents about Scott, he says, "You don't really think I'd use a
thing like that, a man's relations with a woman, to defend my oath
of office, do you?"
At the beginning of the film, we see two groups of demonstrators.
The anti-Lyman "hawks" are almost entirely white men in shirts and
ties with only a few white women. The pro-Lyman "doves" are a much
more diverse group, with African-Americans, Hispanics, more women,
and more obviously working class people.
But I think in an attempt to make Senator Ray Clark a good guy
Serling slipped in a bit of an anachronism. I just don't think
that a older Senator from Georgia in the early 1960s (which seems
to be the milieu of the film) would address an African-American
woman in the airport as "Ma'am".
Watching the rally at which General Scott was speaking, his speech
and the crowd reactions to it reminded me strongly of a Donald
Trump rally.
The scenes in the desert around Site Y (and some of the scenes at
Site Y) had the feeling of a "Twilight Zone" episode. I don't
think it because Rod Serling did the script, because it was more a
visual thing than based on dialogue. It may just have been that so
many "Twilight Zone" episodes were set in deserts. In fact, it
would not surprise me to find out that they were filmed in the same
desert as SEVEN DAYS IN MAY. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Some men love truth so much that they seem to be
in continual fear lest she should catch a cold
on overexposure.
--Samuel Butler
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/19/16 -- Vol. 34, No. 34, Whole Number 1898
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mle...@optonline.net
Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, ele...@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-s...@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-un...@yahoogroups.com
The latest issue is at <http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm>.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
<http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm>.
Topics:
Digital Backlash (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
ADMIRAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
"Almost" (letter of comment by Charles S. Harris)
Charitable Investments (letter of comment
by Leland R. Beaumont)
Mars Rover (letter of comment by Philip Chee)
This Week's Reading (THE WOMAN WHO WALKED IN SUNSHINE
and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY) (book and film comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Digital Backlash (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
As just about everybody knows, digital technology is now used more
than traditional film technology in the movie production industry.
A very large piece of the entertainment industry has seen the
advantages of digital recording over analog. Major movies are now
being shot in digital and sound is also recorded on video. With
digital recording a picture is broken up into very tiny pixels and
the content of each pixel is recorded as a series of 1s and 0s.
Those digits can easily be stored, processed, and manipulated by
electronic means. The adept of digital technology has a great deal
of power and freedom in processing information stored on a computer
and which can be sent over a telephone line. Digital movies can
be made very inexpensively with an advantage that the market is
much more inviting for neophyte filmmakers and low-budget
production companies. Some people are even making short movies on
their cell phones.
The quality of digital images improves with time. There was a time
when it was easy to look at a film and see problems with boundaries
of moving objects in the image and they would not look quite right.
But the answer to image problems was in large part just to increase
the number of digits stored.
The same revolution has hit the music industry. I was surprised to
see in my local bookstore a rack of vinyl records being sold again.
And they were being sold at much higher prices than I used to pay
for vinyl records. There are people who can hear, or think they can
hear, imperfections in digital recordings of music that the
original performance or an analog recording did not have. To be
perfectly candid, I myself cannot hear the flaws some people detect
in digital recordings. But I do not have a trained ear. Now
people who can hear the difference are going back to collecting
recordings on vinyl.
Now I see that Colin Trevorrow, who has been chosen to direct the
next "Star Wars" film, says that it will be shot on film, not in
digital. I take it that STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS was shot
digitally and Trevorrow thinks that digital photography just did
not stand up to real film. I can say I did not consciously notice
any difference, but it will probably make for a better image.
Digital technology no doubt will be used to create a lot of the
visual images anyway.
I can see some advantages for filmmakers to go back to film for a
while longer (or for some even permanently).
1) Shooting in digital is very cost-effective and also much faster.
But it is tempting to just do a lot of shooting and hope a few
shots will be really good. Shooting on film is more expensive and
that can be a virtue. Shooting must be more carefully planned.
2) There are already a lot of experienced craftsmen around who know
how to use film very effectively. Not everybody in the industry
knows digital technology yet, but the experts do know how to
effectively create subtle images on film.
3) Film is physical. You can feel it in your hand. It does not go
away if a battery dies. That adds a level of satisfaction.
4) Digital imagery divides an image up in discrete pixels. That
makes each little point of light an approximation of what it should
be. It can be a very close approximation, but it will never be
precisely right.
STAR WARS: EPISODE 4 [A NEW HOPE] was the first film to really go
heavily into digital special effects. As Wikipedia: Digital
Cinematography says, "In May 1999 George Lucas challenged the
supremacy of the movie-making medium of film for the first time by
including footage filmed with high-definition digital cameras in
STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE. The digital footage
blended seamlessly with the footage shot on film and he announced
later that year he would film its sequels entirely on hi-def
digital video." Now that the property belongs to Disney the next
"Star Wars" film will be going back to being shot on film. That is
ironic. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: ADMIRAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is the epic biopic of the career of Dutch naval hero
Michiel Ruyter who fought against the English and the French in the
second and third Anglo-Dutch wars, 1665 to 1673. It features
several exciting cannon battles between ships. The filmmakers
frequently create spectacular visual effects using CGI like it was
meant to be used. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
[The film is in Dutch, English, and French with subtitles where
they are needed.]
I never much was interested in the French and Indian Wars when they
taught it in school. I suppose I could not identify with the
people fighting or picture the conflict. Then I saw the film THE
LAST OF THE MOHICANS and I was hooked. It always seemed to me that
history should be taught at least in part on the movie screen.
Films should be used to make historical times come alive for
students. The Dutch film ADMIRAL has been made in two versions.
One is for general release and one has less sex and violence for
showing in schools. And I think it will work wonders to involve
students in history. It is, after all, an exciting ride, even if it
does not always get its history correct. As a Hornblower fan I
would rather see two ships from the Age of Sail battling in than
see two superheroes fighting each other. Particularly since along
the way I am learning a little about real history. Not that the
history is necessarily 100% accurate, but one learns the issues and
gets an idea of the times.
ADMIRAL (a.k.a. MICHIEL DE RUYTER) is the story of Dutch Admiral
Michiel de Ruyter's career over what appears to be several months,
but historically was several years. The film begins and within
minutes we are on the shore at Scheveningen watching a battle on
the North Sea. De Ruyter (played by Frank Lammers) proves himself
to be an excellent commander and when Dutch Lieutenant-Admiral
Tromp (Rutger Hauer) is killed, de Ruyter is chosen to replace him.
We then are presented the story of de Ruyter's naval victories.
There is a re-creation of the Four Days' Battle that is explosive
even if it does not give a good summary of the battle. In the real
world the battle ended with the British retreating to the safety of
the Thames and de Ruyter blockading the Thames for fifty-one days
before being forced to retreat. In the ADMIRAL dramatization, de
Ruyter simply returns home after the battle.
The reason the film gives for the wars was that the Dutch had a
republic and the royalty of England did not want that egalitarian
idea to spread. Inside the Netherlands the Orangists and the
Republicans join forces temporarily to defend the Netherlands from
the English, but the monarchist Orangists and the Republicans were
still tearing their own country apart in a political conflict
verging on civil war. Though battle scenes are featured, the film
is as much about political strife in the Netherlands at the time.
De Ruyter is dragged into the internal conflict of the Orangists
who wanted a king and the Republicans who had a more democratic
vision.
In the version I saw there is nudity and some torture is depicted.
I assume I saw the general release version. The dialog talks down
a little to the viewers who are intended in large part to be school
students, but it pays the viewer back in thrilling visual images.
The film uses rather obvious CGI, but the complexity and intensity
of battle could be done no other way without a much bigger budget.
The cast of the film is almost entirely Dutch and consists mostly
of what were for me unfamiliar faces. Two exceptions are Rutger
Hauer as Tromp, a Dutch Naval hero, but he is on the screen for
only a short time. The other is Charles Dance, who does sinister
oh-so-well, as fans of GAME OF THRONES can attest. Dance plays
reprobate English king Charles II, though he is much older than the
historical Charles would have been.
People seem to be awed just by the trailer for ADMIRAL (I know I
was) and the film does live up to the trailer. The trailer can be
seen at the address below. Though the trailer gives the impression
that this is predominately an English language production, it is
mostly in Dutch. ADMIRAL will be on VOD and iTunes on February 23
and in theaters March 11. I rate it a high +2 on the -4 to +4
scale or 8/10.
Film Credits:
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2544766/combined>
What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/admiral_2016/>
Trailer:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iylP5nJqkMU>
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: "Almost" (letter of comment by Charles S. Harris)
In response to Evelyn's comments on "The Greek Interpreter" in the
02/12/16 issue of the MT VOID, Charles S. Harris writes:
You wrote, "I'm not sure I would call an hour and forty minutes
'almost two hours.'"
But you also said, "'Nero Wolfe' has almost all its letters in
common with 'Sherlock Holmes'
100/120 = .8333+
6/9 = .6666+
So there's almost a blatant inconsistency here. [-csh]
Evelyn responds:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am
large, I contain multitudes.
Seriously, the first one doesn't *feel* like "almost" to me and the
second one does. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Charitable Investments (letter of comment by Leland
R. Beaumont)
In response to Mark's comments on charitable investments in the
02/12/16 issue of the MT VOID, Lee Beaumont writes:
A good site for researching the best place for charity giving is
<http://www.givewell.org/>.
They list their top charities at
<http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities>. [-lrb]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Mars Rover (letter of comment by Philip Chee)
In response to Steve Milton's comments on the Mars rover in the
02/12/16 issue of the MT VOID, Philip Chee writes:
The NASA engineers also noticed that the Martian winds, slight as
they are, are capable of blowing the dust off the solar panels.
They took advantage of this by orienteering the rover to maximize
the effect of those winds. [-pc]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE WOMAN WHO WALKED IN SUNSHINE by Alexander McCall Smith (ISBN
978-0-307-91156-8) is number sixteen in the "No. 1 Ladies'
Detective Agency" series and it is pretty much more of the same.
We do get to see that Mma Makutsi has matured, but that is about
the only change. And I am getting tired of Violet Sephotho being
dragged in as the evil villain in every book. Even Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle mentioned Moriarty in only seven stories, and he was an
active character in only two ("The Final Problem" and THE VALLEY OF
FEAR).
SEVEN DAYS IN MAY by Fletcher Knebel and John Bailey (ISBN 978-0-
553-131697) was chosen for our film-and-book discussion group.
Well, it is marginally science fiction, supposedly taking place
about a dozen years after it was written. In fact, it might be
considered a proto-techno-thriller, though the "techo" level is
pretty low. The film hews fairly closely to the book, although it
drops a few characters: in the book Jiggs Casey is married with a
family, and the person involved with Scott is a friend of Eleanor
Holbrook, not Eleanor herself. The entire Yakutsk subplot has also
been dropped.
A couple of items jumped out. It is mentioned in passing that
someone had $1500 in deductions disallowed, so owed $1000 more in
income tax. We forget that there used to be 67% (and higher) tax
brackets. Also, when Lyman is presented with some incriminating
documents about Scott, he says, "You don't really think I'd use a
thing like that, a man's relations with a woman, to defend my oath
of office, do you?"
At the beginning of the film, we see two groups of demonstrators.
The anti-Lyman "hawks" are almost entirely white men in shirts and
ties with only a few white women. The pro-Lyman "doves" are a much
more diverse group, with African-Americans, Hispanics, more women,
and more obviously working class people.
But I think in an attempt to make Senator Ray Clark a good guy
Serling slipped in a bit of an anachronism. I just don't think
that a older Senator from Georgia in the early 1960s (which seems
to be the milieu of the film) would address an African-American
woman in the airport as "Ma'am".
Watching the rally at which General Scott was speaking, his speech
and the crowd reactions to it reminded me strongly of a Donald
Trump rally.
The scenes in the desert around Site Y (and some of the scenes at
Site Y) had the feeling of a "Twilight Zone" episode. I don't
think it because Rod Serling did the script, because it was more a
visual thing than based on dialogue. It may just have been that so
many "Twilight Zone" episodes were set in deserts. In fact, it
would not surprise me to find out that they were filmed in the same
desert as SEVEN DAYS IN MAY. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Some men love truth so much that they seem to be
in continual fear lest she should catch a cold
on overexposure.
--Samuel Butler
pete...@gmail.com
Feb 25, 2016, 11:52:39 AM2/25/16
to
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:34:59 AM UTC-5, ele...@optonline.net wrote:
> THE MT VOID
> Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
> 02/19/16 -- Vol. 34, No. 34, Whole Number 1898
>
> Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mle...@optonline.net
> Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, ele...@optonline.net
write:
> THE MT VOID
> Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
> 02/19/16 -- Vol. 34, No. 34, Whole Number 1898
>
> Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mle...@optonline.net
> Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, ele...@optonline.net
> Now I see that Colin Trevorrow, who has been chosen to direct the
> next "Star Wars" film, says that it will be shot on film, not in
> digital. I take it that STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS was shot
> digitally and Trevorrow thinks that digital photography just did
> not stand up to real film. I can say I did not consciously notice
> any difference, but it will probably make for a better image.
> Digital technology no doubt will be used to create a lot of the
> visual images anyway.
> I can see some advantages for filmmakers to go back to film for a
> while longer (or for some even permanently).
Filming SW 8 on actual film is a bit of artistic pretention. It will
be projected on digital. Digital projection reached over 90% a couple
years ago, and is higher now. 70 mm projectors are now so rare that
'Hateful Eight' had to ship working machines from theatre to theatre
in a 'road show. 35mm projection is also now hard to find.
> 1) Shooting in digital is very cost-effective and also much faster.
> But it is tempting to just do a lot of shooting and hope a few
> shots will be really good. Shooting on film is more expensive and
> that can be a virtue. Shooting must be more carefully planned.
> 2) There are already a lot of experienced craftsmen around who know
> how to use film very effectively. Not everybody in the industry
> knows digital technology yet, but the experts do know how to
> effectively create subtle images on film.
in quality. But the industry is rapidly losing its analog skills; 'shooting
on film' is already the hard and unusual option. At the moment, 90% of movies
are shot digitally:
https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/
> 3) Film is physical. You can feel it in your hand. It does not go
> away if a battery dies. That adds a level of satisfaction.
the cost of that 'satisfaction' as prohibitive.
> 4) Digital imagery divides an image up in discrete pixels. That
> makes each little point of light an approximation of what it should
> be. It can be a very close approximation, but it will never be
> precisely right.
the vision were reality in front of your eyes. Film can be grainy, and
the lens size and focal length impress hard limits to both film and
digital projection.
Even your retina has a resolution limit, determined by eye aperture,
focal length, and the size of cones and rods.
https://library.creativecow.net/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/1
> STAR WARS: EPISODE 4 [A NEW HOPE] was the first film to really go
> heavily into digital special effects.
digital computers for motion control, moving cameras and physical
spaceship models around for filming, which enabled complex and
repeatable movements. This is now a dead technique. CGI came in
later, and the milestones would be TRON (1982) and The Last
Starfighter (1984).
Lucas meddles incessantly in his past work, the SW 'Special Edition' in
1997 added a lot of CGI, to the dismay of most fans.
> As Wikipedia: Digital
> Cinematography says, "In May 1999 George Lucas challenged the
> supremacy of the movie-making medium of film for the first time by
> including footage filmed with high-definition digital cameras in
> STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE. The digital footage
> blended seamlessly with the footage shot on film and he announced
> later that year he would film its sequels entirely on hi-def
> digital video." Now that the property belongs to Disney the next
> "Star Wars" film will be going back to being shot on film. That is
> ironic. [-mrl]
theatres with new 35 mm projectors, and train an army of projectionists.
pt
Philip Chee
Feb 26, 2016, 1:00:13 AM2/26/16
to
On 26/02/2016 00:52, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Now I see that Colin Trevorrow, who has been chosen to direct the
>>> next "Star Wars" film, says that it will be shot on film, not in
>>> digital. I take it that STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS was shot
>>> digitally and Trevorrow thinks that digital photography just did
>>> not stand up to real film. I can say I did not consciously notice
>>> any difference, but it will probably make for a better image.
>>> Digital technology no doubt will be used to create a lot of the
>>> visual images anyway.
>>> I can see some advantages for filmmakers to go back to film for a
>>> while longer (or for some even permanently).
> I find that I disagree with almost every point here.
> Filming SW 8 on actual film is a bit of artistic pretention. It will
> be projected on digital. Digital projection reached over 90% a couple
> years ago, and is higher now. 70 mm projectors are now so rare that
> 'Hateful Eight' had to ship working machines from theatre to theatre
> in a 'road show. 35mm projection is also now hard to find.
Given that this type of film require large amounts of CGI/VFX the film
>> Now I see that Colin Trevorrow, who has been chosen to direct the
>>> next "Star Wars" film, says that it will be shot on film, not in
>>> digital. I take it that STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS was shot
>>> digitally and Trevorrow thinks that digital photography just did
>>> not stand up to real film. I can say I did not consciously notice
>>> any difference, but it will probably make for a better image.
>>> Digital technology no doubt will be used to create a lot of the
>>> visual images anyway.
>>> I can see some advantages for filmmakers to go back to film for a
>>> while longer (or for some even permanently).
> I find that I disagree with almost every point here.
> Filming SW 8 on actual film is a bit of artistic pretention. It will
> be projected on digital. Digital projection reached over 90% a couple
> years ago, and is higher now. 70 mm projectors are now so rare that
> 'Hateful Eight' had to ship working machines from theatre to theatre
> in a 'road show. 35mm projection is also now hard to find.
would definitely have to be converted to digital anyway.
>> > 1) Shooting in digital is very cost-effective and also much faster.
>> > But it is tempting to just do a lot of shooting and hope a few
>> > shots will be really good. Shooting on film is more expensive and
>> > that can be a virtue. Shooting must be more carefully planned.
> Agreed, but this is just a matter of discipline.
simultaneously from different angles and then choosing which angle to
use. This is almost like editing in real time. Also this meant that he
didn't have to do a lot of re-shoots. Most tent-pole blockbusters budget
for about a month or re-shoots. Scott spent just two weeks.
In the Martian, he also had about 30 GoPro's active. They were meant to
be props but they were working cameras and a lot of that GoPro footage
was used.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
0 new messages