HDCAM - Star Wars Trailer
John Fromes
the shots were very tight, and a lot of them were the usual FX heavy
stuff, but the close ups on actors & the less digital matte style
shots looked so good, that There is NO WAY to differentiate this from
a 35mm shoot.
The art of cinematography is just as much with the LIGHTING as it is
with the camera...
- JF
www.sonnyboo.com
(my stuff)
www.theCFC.org
(your stuff)
La...@la.com
wrote:
>There was no way in hell you could NOT tell that was 35mm. Granted,
>the shots were very tight, and a lot of them were the usual FX heavy
>stuff, but the close ups on actors & the less digital matte style
>shots looked so good, that There is NO WAY to differentiate this from
>a 35mm shoot.
Yes there is. HD looks like video. Then again 50% of TPM looked like
video because of the amount of digital work inserted and the oh-hum
quality of the original photography.
>
>The art of cinematography is just as much with the LIGHTING as it is
>with the camera...
>
Exactly.
Dave Kittredge
and preview were projected in DLP digital and looked great... not that you
could really tell how the Episode 2 trailer looked compared to 35mm from
the tight way the trailer is cut.
Anyhow, I was expecting something that looked like "Session 9" and was
pleasantly surprised.
Dave
John Fromes
Apparently you missed my point. The close ups & other works in this
trailer DID look like 35mm....
La...@la.com
<da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>Saw the trailer today before "Monsters Inc" at 42nd St in NYC. The film
>and preview were projected in DLP digital and looked great... not that you
>could really tell how the Episode 2 trailer looked compared to 35mm from
>the tight way the trailer is cut.
By "tight" you mean the cut happy crappolla that passes for "exciting
editing" these days? ;)
La...@la.com
wrote:
>La...@LA.com wrote in message news:<3be59124...@news.pacificnet.net>...
>> On 4 Nov 2001 06:37:12 -0800, johnf...@excite.com (John Fromes)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There was no way in hell you could NOT tell that was 35mm. Granted,
>> >the shots were very tight, and a lot of them were the usual FX heavy
>> >stuff, but the close ups on actors & the less digital matte style
>> >shots looked so good, that There is NO WAY to differentiate this from
>> >a 35mm shoot.
>>
>> Yes there is. HD looks like video. Then again 50% of TPM looked like
>> video because of the amount of digital work inserted and the oh-hum
>> quality of the original photography.
>> >
>> >The art of cinematography is just as much with the LIGHTING as it is
>> >with the camera...
>> >
>> Exactly.
>
>
>Apparently you missed my point. The close ups & other works in this
>trailer DID look like 35mm....
To your eye maybe.
John Fromes
Did you see it ? Why judge beofre you've seen it ?
Besides there were 4 shots in Phantom Menace that were shot with
HDCAM, and no one noticed. That's in the FILM & VIDEO magazine
article. For anyone that wants to keep claming "You can tell... You
can tell the difference..." and no one noticed (not even you).
- JF
www.theCFC.org
John Fromes
> editing" these days? ;)
No, meaning tight editing like a TEASER trailer which is what this was....
: )
La...@la.com
wrote:
>> To your eye maybe.
>
>Did you see it ? Why judge beofre you've seen it ?
I've seen more than enough 24P footage to know it doesn't look like
film. It's closer than other video systems but no cigar. :)
>Besides there were 4 shots in Phantom Menace that were shot with
>HDCAM, and no one noticed.
Hard to notice among the oodles of poor looking digitally "enhanced"
shots.
>That's in the FILM & VIDEO magazine
>article. For anyone that wants to keep claming "You can tell... You
>can tell the difference..." and no one noticed (not even you).
You can tell the difference. Just because it's not apparent to you
doesn't mean it's not apparent to others. :)
I'm sure George Lucas can't tell the difference. His movies show that
he doesn't see the difference between the great (TESB) and the ugly
(RoTJ and TPM).
John Fromes
> On 5 Nov 2001 07:08:54 -0800, johnf...@excite.com (John Fromes)
> wrote:
>
> >> To your eye maybe.
> >
> >Did you see it ? Why judge beofre you've seen it ?
>
> I've seen more than enough 24P footage to know it doesn't look like
> film. It's closer than other video systems but no cigar. :)
But these are shot with the Panavision lenses. It lookes a hell of a
lot different than the generic Sony lenses they pawn off with the
regulare HDCAM.
So you are making judgements without seeing it...
You are of that special "WISE" category of people who probably have
the open mindedness of a key hole.
Dave Kittredge
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:44:31 GMT, Dave Kittredge
> <da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>
> >Saw the trailer today before "Monsters Inc" at 42nd St in NYC. The film
> >and preview were projected in DLP digital and looked great... not that you
> >could really tell how the Episode 2 trailer looked compared to 35mm from
> >the tight way the trailer is cut.
>
> By "tight" you mean the cut happy crappolla that passes for "exciting
> editing" these days? ;)
Ummm... no, actually I wasn't talking about films cut like music videos, I was
talking about the Episode 2 trailer, which used Darth Vader's breath for a
soundtrack and showed snippets of shots between cutting to black.
And if anything, since the Avid came along, more films I've seen have been
damaged by editors cutting much longer than they've needed to, and not vice
versa. But of course, I'm not waiting in line for the next Universal Soldier
sequel.
Dave
La...@la.com
<da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:44:31 GMT, Dave Kittredge
>> <da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Saw the trailer today before "Monsters Inc" at 42nd St in NYC. The film
>> >and preview were projected in DLP digital and looked great... not that you
>> >could really tell how the Episode 2 trailer looked compared to 35mm from
>> >the tight way the trailer is cut.
>>
>> By "tight" you mean the cut happy crappolla that passes for "exciting
>> editing" these days? ;)
>
>Ummm... no, actually I wasn't talking about films cut like music videos, I was
>talking about the Episode 2 trailer, which used Darth Vader's breath for a
>soundtrack and showed snippets of shots between cutting to black.
>
>And if anything, since the Avid came along, more films I've seen have been
>damaged by editors cutting much longer than they've needed to, and not vice
>versa.
I'm curious what would make you say that. :)
La...@la.com
wrote:
>La...@LA.com wrote in message news:<3be6d5f2...@news.pacificnet.net>...
>> On 5 Nov 2001 07:08:54 -0800, johnf...@excite.com (John Fromes)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> To your eye maybe.
>> >
>> >Did you see it ? Why judge beofre you've seen it ?
>>
>> I've seen more than enough 24P footage to know it doesn't look like
>> film. It's closer than other video systems but no cigar. :)
>
>But these are shot with the Panavision lenses. It lookes a hell of a
>lot different than the generic Sony lenses they pawn off with the
>regulare HDCAM.
>
>So you are making judgements without seeing it...
>
>You are of that special "WISE" category of people who probably have
>the open mindedness of a key hole.
Yadda, yadda, yadda... Somehow every video originated film that comes
out you're supposed "not to be able to tell the difference with film".
And when you see it, you can, big surprise...
Dave Kittredge
La...@LA.com wrote:
Ummm.... because it's true?
Looking at movies before Avid was widely used, editors seemed to execute a great
deal more care in the pacing. I think that if "movies suck" more now, it's due to
two elements going downhill: writing and editing. There is absolutely no reason
for 90% of the movies out right now to be as long as they are; their narratives
simply don't allow for it. Look at something mainstream for the late '70s like
"Alien", for example, and think about how loooooong Ridley Scott would have had it
cut today based on "G.I. Jane", "White Squall", and "Gladiator", three films that
should have been cut down substantially from their current run times.
Of course on the other end of the spectrum you have stuff like "Tomb Raider" and
"Pearl Harbor", which are basically two hour effects reels. To say they're "cut
fast" is to overlook the fact that they had no narrative to cut to begin with. A
director like Tim Burton would never have been able to get away with "Planet of the
Apes" ten years ago. Somebody, somewhere, would have made him cut it down.
Dave
Dave Kittredge
You know I actually generally agree with the assertion that HD has looked nothing
like film (not even 24p HD), but you're not helping your argument by dismissing it
out of hand. The "Episode 2" trailer looked very good, at least in DLP, but none
of the shots held long enough in the teaser for me to see the video jitter when
people move or any pixelation (though I'm certain they'll smooth out the latter
when they up-res it to 35mm).
Bottom line is that electronic cinematography is the future, and if not 24p HD,
then the next system that will have 2K horizontal res and a seamless shutter with
no discernable pixelation. It's basically inevitable, and it shouldn't be
something that is dreaded; all the new technology are only tools to be used by
talented DPs. I'm no convert to 24p HD for film transfers, but it's not a
horrible solution. NTSC DV isn't even that horrible a solution any more, if it's
done right (sure it's ugly, but it's not Hi8). It all depends on what you're
trying to do.
Me, I'd see everything shot in Super Panavision 70 if I had my way. They had it
right in the 50s.
Dave
La...@la.com
<da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>
>
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 04:44:06 GMT, Dave Kittredge
>> <da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And if anything, since the Avid came along, more films I've seen have been
>> >damaged by editors cutting much longer than they've needed to, and not vice
>> >versa.
>>
>> I'm curious what would make you say that. :)
>
>Ummm.... because it's true?
>
>Looking at movies before Avid was widely used, editors seemed to execute a great
>deal more care in the pacing.
I'd have a tendency to agree with you.
>I think that if "movies suck" more now, it's due to
>two elements going downhill: writing and editing.
Music scoring has also gone downhill in the past 10-15 years. And for
a lot of movies shaking the camera passes for "direction".
>There is absolutely no reason
>for 90% of the movies out right now to be as long as they are; their narratives
>simply don't allow for it. Look at something mainstream for the late '70s like
>"Alien", for example, and think about how loooooong Ridley Scott would have had it
>cut today based on "G.I. Jane", "White Squall", and "Gladiator", three films that
>should have been cut down substantially from their current run times.
But it's the overall length of the films you're referring to, not the
fact that the editors are ordered to but shorter shots (presumably
bacuse the suits think the "MTVers" won't sit still for any shot over
five seconds!
>Of course on the other end of the spectrum you have stuff like "Tomb Raider" and
>"Pearl Harbor", which are basically two hour effects reels. To say they're "cut
>fast" is to overlook the fact that they had no narrative to cut to begin with.
When fast cutting and shaking the camera replace pacing and direction,
that's the sad result. :((
La...@la.com
<da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>> On 5 Nov 2001 17:23:33 -0800, johnf...@excite.com (John Fromes)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So you are making judgements without seeing it...
>> >
>> >You are of that special "WISE" category of people who probably have
>> >the open mindedness of a key hole.
>>
>> Yadda, yadda, yadda... Somehow every video originated film that comes
>> out you're supposed "not to be able to tell the difference with film".
>> And when you see it, you can, big surprise...
>
>You know I actually generally agree with the assertion that HD has looked nothing
>like film (not even 24p HD), but you're not helping your argument by dismissing it
>out of hand. The "Episode 2" trailer looked very good, at least in DLP, but none
>of the shots held long enough in the teaser for me to see the video jitter when
>people move or any pixelation (though I'm certain they'll smooth out the latter
>when they up-res it to 35mm).
Those are not the only problems of video origination.
>Bottom line is that electronic cinematography is the future, and if not 24p HD,
>then the next system that will have 2K horizontal res and a seamless shutter with
>no discernable pixelation. It's basically inevitable,
Possibly. We'll see when we're there. Right now we're not.
>and it shouldn't be
>something that is dreaded;
I don't dread it. I dread having to watch inferior images being
passed off as "state of the art" because the buzzword "digital" was
attached to it.
>all the new technology are only tools to be used by
>talented DPs. I'm no convert to 24p HD for film transfers, but it's not a
>horrible solution.
It's also not the best solution. Sad to see a multi-million dollar
project use it for hype.
>NTSC DV isn't even that horrible a solution any more, if it's
>done right (sure it's ugly, but it's not Hi8). It all depends on what you're
>trying to do.
True, but most of the people using it are trying to pass it off as "as
good as film" when it isn't for what they're trying to do.
>
>Me, I'd see everything shot in Super Panavision 70 if I had my way. They had it
>right in the 50s.
Good example that what is 'modern" is not necesarily what is best. :)
Dave Kittredge
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 15:04:44 GMT, Dave Kittredge
> <da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
> >You know I actually generally agree with the assertion that HD has looked nothing
> >like film (not even 24p HD), but you're not helping your argument by dismissing it
> >out of hand. The "Episode 2" trailer looked very good, at least in DLP, but none
> >of the shots held long enough in the teaser for me to see the video jitter when
> >people move or any pixelation (though I'm certain they'll smooth out the latter
> >when they up-res it to 35mm).
>
> Those are not the only problems of video origination.
Well... aren't they? I mean, we're talking about digital scanning versus a
photosensitive chemical reaction... what additional problems are there? Film has
"pixels" that are random, which give the illusion of greater resolution, that's a
plus. Video has a constant matrix of pixels, a minus. But video has no gate weave,
which substantially cuts down a lot of perceived resolution on film... the pros and
cons go on and on. As a process I don't see what's "inherently" wrong with video
versus film, if (and only if) video is done at a vast resolution with as great or
better contrast and color. It's all possible, and inevitable.
> >Bottom line is that electronic cinematography is the future, and if not 24p HD,
> >then the next system that will have 2K horizontal res and a seamless shutter with
> >no discernable pixelation.
>
> Possibly. We'll see when we're there. Right now we're not.
Well yeah.
> >and it shouldn't be something that is dreaded;
>
> I don't dread it. I dread having to watch inferior images being
> passed off as "state of the art" because the buzzword "digital" was
> attached to it.
Well, the other side of the sword is to reject anything with a buzzword without looking
at it first. I have no doubt whatsoever 24p HDCAM will be a boon for TV production and
straight-to-video releases. On NTSC (and probably on HD) it's virtually
indistinguishable. I really have to look during a "100 Center St" episode to find
something that indicates its HD origins. I agree there's a lot of people who have been
digital converts way too quickly and easily, but the bottom line is, digital *is* the
future. I'm just not convinced it'll be a picture with only 1080 vertical pixels.
> >I'm no convert to 24p HD for film transfers, but it's not a
> >horrible solution.
>
> It's also not the best solution. Sad to see a multi-million dollar
> project use it for hype.
They're not using it for hype, they're using it to save tens of millions of dollars in
scanning 35mm for effects. Since most of the film has shots that need to be rendered
in some way, keeping it all electronic makes some amount of sense. What doesn't, IMHO,
is the fact that even the Sony 900 HDCam (24p) doesn't generate what I would consider a
good mastering resolution to start from.
> >NTSC DV isn't even that horrible a solution any more, if it's
> >done right (sure it's ugly, but it's not Hi8). It all depends on what you're
> >trying to do.
>
> True, but most of the people using it are trying to pass it off as "as
> good as film" when it isn't for what they're trying to do.
But nobody really believes that, and anybody who believes that DV is as good as film
has rocks in his head. DV isn't even as good as 16mm.
> >Me, I'd see everything shot in Super Panavision 70 if I had my way. They had it
> >right in the 50s.
>
> Good example that what is 'modern" is not necesarily what is best. :)
Roger.
Dave
David Mullen
>project use it for hype.
I seriously doubt that Lucas used the 24P HD technology in order to sell
more tickets. He used it because he's been saying for twenty years now that
film is an outmoded technology and he's been chomping at the bit to use a
digital capture technology, even if it's not completely on-par with 35mm.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just that he's merely acting from an
anti-film belief system he's been carrying around in his head for decades,
not because he just wants some short-lived attention today. Your claim that
he's using 24P HD for hype value is too simplistic an evaluation considering
he's been talking along these lines ever since he made "Star Wars" in 1977.
"Hype" implies that he actually doesn't have a deep-seated belief in the
importance of moving from film-based to electronic-based image creation and
presentation, but that he's merely doing this to be different with no real
emotional commitment one way or the other.
It would be much better if one considered 24P HD as simply another
filmmaking format to choose, or another "look" that can be created, not as
some sort of replacement for 35mm. Even Lucas has said in interviews that
he has no problem with other filmmakers -- like Spielberg -- being committed
to using film; he is just looking for a complete system of filmmaking that
works for him.
If Lucas' world-view is making him biased against film, yours is making you
biased against video. The truth is that 24P HD is not as good as he's
making it out to be nor as bad as you make it out to be.
If film was in serious danger of being entirely replaced by the current 24P
HD technology, I'd be shoving YOU aside to get in the front line of film's
defense. But for now, I just see it as an option, the way that Fuji is an
option to Kodak, or that reversal is an option to negative, or that Super-35
is an option to anamorphic. No system is perfect; there are strengths and
weaknesses to every format that one must take into consideration.
The truth is that (1) 35mm is superior to 24P HD in almost every technical &
aesthetic category one can think of, but (2) 24P HD is capable of delivering
attractive images even to the movie theater and therefore is a legitimate
alternative to 35mm and opens the possibility of creating new looks. The
truth is that even within the 35mm filmmaking world, we don't always choose
the "best" methods for image creation (sharpest lenses, finest-grained film,
etc.) because this an art just as much as it is a science -- so if we can
justify shooting a whole film on Vision 800T and skip-bleach processing the
print, or underexposing and push-processing, or using diffusion filtration,
surely there's room for shooting movies on 24P HD somewhere in there...
Personally, this is an exciting time for me, having more film stocks and
more film formats AND more digital technologies to play with. I like having
options.
And I think within two years, we'll see that 24P HD technology will make
only limited incursions into 35mm filmmaking, maybe 10% of theatrical and
25% of dramatic television, and then get stuck there until something better
comes along. That's just an uneducated guess so don't hold me to it. The
industry has always been inherently conservative technically, for better or
worse, and the system is still really better oriented towards being
film-based, especially for theatrical films. And film looks really, really
good anyway...
There's room in the sandbox for both digital and film-based filmmakers to
play together.
David Mullen
Marc Wielage
(in message <I6XF7.18844$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>):
> I seriously doubt that Lucas used the 24P HD technology in order to sell
> more tickets. He used it because he's been saying for twenty years now that
> film is an outmoded technology and he's been chomping at the bit to use a
> digital capture technology, even if it's not completely on-par with 35mm.
>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
David, I think the real reason why they went with HDCam was to make it faster
to dump the images into SGI computers to do all the image-manipulation needed
for this specific feature.
At 4fps, scanning conventional 35mm negative is so slow, the experience is
somewhere between watching paint dry and grass grow. (I know. I've probably
scanned 100 hours of it myself.)
I can sympathize with Lucas' impatience. And I also see that if you have a
film where most of the scenes are green screen composites, and you're
throwing away half the picture anyway and replacing it with CGI material,
going to 24P isn't all that bad an idea.
Tattersall is a terrific DP, and I'm certain that if anybody can get good
pictures out of those cameras, he's the guy.
--MFW
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= Marc Wielage | "The computerized authority =-
-= MusicTrax, LLC | on rock, pop, & soul." =-
-= Chatsworth, CA | m...@musictrax.com =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Marc Wielage
(in message <b5715bda.01110...@posting.google.com>):
> Besides there were 4 shots in Phantom Menace that were shot with
> HDCAM, and no one noticed.
>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
Nope. EVERYBODY on the Telecine Internet Group noticed, and some people
howled at how bad some of the shots looked. I think they might have looked
even worse in the DLP projection, out here in Chatsworth.
All of us knew which ones they were. When you see "beautiful shot...
beautiful shot... UGLY SHOT... beautiful shot" in a timed feature, it's
pretty obvious.
The worst was the long scene on the balcony where the guy takes the blood
sample from the kid. Crushed blacks, motion artifacts, the works. I'm sure
if they had shot it in 1080 24P, it would've looked somewhat better. Also,
now I think they have a better handle on how to light this stuff. (Three
words: "more fill light.")
The new trailer has many fast-paced cuts, but a lot of it looked pretty good
to me. But I've always said the main problem with HDCam (and DV, for that
matter) is what it does to exteriors, wide-shots, and over-exposure.
Interiors and close-ups are not that hard to fix.
Matt Sandstrom
> When you see "beautiful shot...
> beautiful shot... UGLY SHOT... beautiful shot" in a timed feature, it's
> pretty obvious.
which reminds me of a question i wanted to ask some time ago but forgot:
what's up with the "ugly shots" in moulin rouge? did i see a bad print,
or was there a problem with this film? or both? i saw the swedish
version, so i guess it could be a local problem. maybe the subtitling
machine ate some of the film so they had to make a duplicate from
another print to splice in or whatever? i don't know. anybody?
/matt
La...@la.com
wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:46:48 -0800, David Mullen wrote
>(in message <I6XF7.18844$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>):
>
>> I seriously doubt that Lucas used the 24P HD technology in order to sell
>> more tickets. He used it because he's been saying for twenty years now that
>> film is an outmoded technology and he's been chomping at the bit to use a
>> digital capture technology, even if it's not completely on-par with 35mm.
>>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
>
>
>David, I think the real reason why they went with HDCam was to make it faster
>to dump the images into SGI computers to do all the image-manipulation needed
>for this specific feature.
Nonsense. They went that way because Lucas probably has a deal on the
cameras that will be sold as a result of his advertising the format.
>
>At 4fps, scanning conventional 35mm negative is so slow, the experience is
>somewhere between watching paint dry and grass grow. (I know. I've probably
>scanned 100 hours of it myself.)
So what? If it looks better, it's worth it.
>I can sympathize with Lucas' impatience.
I can't.
>And I also see that if you have a
>film where most of the scenes are green screen composites, and you're
>throwing away half the picture anyway and replacing it with CGI material,
>going to 24P isn't all that bad an idea.
It's true TPM looked pretty bvad because of that already.
>
>Tattersall is a terrific DP,
Not from what I saw on TPM.
La...@la.com
<da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 15:04:44 GMT, Dave Kittredge
>> <da...@nospam.triplefire.com> wrote:
>> >You know I actually generally agree with the assertion that HD has looked nothing
>> >like film (not even 24p HD), but you're not helping your argument by dismissing it
>> >out of hand. The "Episode 2" trailer looked very good, at least in DLP, but none
>> >of the shots held long enough in the teaser for me to see the video jitter when
>> >people move or any pixelation (though I'm certain they'll smooth out the latter
>> >when they up-res it to 35mm).
>>
>> Those are not the only problems of video origination.
>
>Well... aren't they? I mean, we're talking about digital scanning versus a
>photosensitive chemical reaction... what additional problems are there? Film has
>"pixels" that are random, which give the illusion of greater resolution, that's a
>plus. Video has a constant matrix of pixels, a minus. But video has no gate weave,
>which substantially cuts down a lot of perceived resolution on film... the pros and
>cons go on and on. As a process I don't see what's "inherently" wrong with video
It's not what's "inherent". It's what actually happens in real life
usage.
>versus film, if (and only if) video is done at a vast resolution with as great or
>better contrast and color. It's all possible, and inevitable.
As I said before, we've been hearing that for close to 40-50 years
now. When it actually happens, we'll see. :)
>
>> >Bottom line is that electronic cinematography is the future, and if not 24p HD,
>> >then the next system that will have 2K horizontal res and a seamless shutter with
>> >no discernable pixelation.
>>
>> Possibly. We'll see when we're there. Right now we're not.
>
>Well yeah.
:))
>
>> >and it shouldn't be something that is dreaded;
>>
>> I don't dread it. I dread having to watch inferior images being
>> passed off as "state of the art" because the buzzword "digital" was
>> attached to it.
>
>Well, the other side of the sword is to reject anything with a buzzword without looking
>at it first. I have no doubt whatsoever 24p HDCAM will be a boon for TV production and
>straight-to-video releases.
The "boon" is not for the audience. Crossing Jordan should be called
"Crappy Jordan" for its 24P look and WItchblade was one of the ugliest
things ever to disgrace ourt screens.
>On NTSC (and probably on HD) it's virtually
>indistinguishable.
It's VERY distinguishable. I had no idea Crossing Jordan was shot on
24P and I recognized it without looking for it.
>I really have to look during a "100 Center St" episode to find
>something that indicates its HD origins.
I've never seen that show.
>I agree there's a lot of people who have been
>digital converts way too quickly and easily, but the bottom line is, digital *is* the
>future.
Possibly. It's just not the present. And the present is the only
thing that matters.
>I'm just not convinced it'll be a picture with only 1080 vertical pixels.
>
>> >I'm no convert to 24p HD for film transfers, but it's not a
>> >horrible solution.
>>
>> It's also not the best solution. Sad to see a multi-million dollar
>> project use it for hype.
>
>They're not using it for hype,
Yes they are. Lucas will probably get a big piece of the pie he's
hlping create.
>they're using it to save tens of millions of dollars in
>scanning 35mm for effects.
35mm scanning is not all that expensive. Especially when you own the
machines. Your only cost become the cost of the operator setting up
the machines (and processing of course).
>Since most of the film has shots that need to be rendered
>in some way, keeping it all electronic makes some amount of sense. What doesn't, IMHO,
>is the fact that even the Sony 900 HDCam (24p) doesn't generate what I would consider a
>good mastering resolution to start from.
Well there you go. :)
>
>> >NTSC DV isn't even that horrible a solution any more, if it's
>> >done right (sure it's ugly, but it's not Hi8). It all depends on what you're
>> >trying to do.
>>
>> True, but most of the people using it are trying to pass it off as "as
>> good as film" when it isn't for what they're trying to do.
>
>But nobody really believes that,
Yet so many people say it. That's how this thread started.
>and anybody who believes that DV is as good as film
>has rocks in his head. DV isn't even as good as 16mm.
I agree :))
>
>> >Me, I'd see everything shot in Super Panavision 70 if I had my way. They had it
>> >right in the 50s.
>>
>> Good example that what is 'modern" is not necesarily what is best. :)
>
>Roger.
>
How much more expensive is 70mm stock? :)
David Mullen
>cameras that will be sold as a result of his advertising the format.
It would be nice if you could present proof for such a claim. Otherwise,
you're suggesting that he wanted to shoot on 35mm but Sony presented this
"deal" if he would switch to HD.
David Mullen
Alexander Ibrahim
noentheless qualified to comment on that particular piece of work.
Sometimes LaGuy is insightful, but then he does this crap and just
seems bigoted.
LaGuy, I'd like for you to actually see this trailer and then please
give specific comments.
See...the HD photography you may have seen elsewhere is probably
different. The shots in Episode 1 were a first stab at HD for film
work by Lucas et. al but now we see a more mature/experienced HD
effort. You can't draw a conclusion based on old evidence in an
evolving art/science.
It is a new day, and it is worth your time to see the footage and
evaluate it...that way you can make intelligent remarks here, and
intelligent decisions in your work. You may be right, and then can
explain yourself to us blind fools. Then again, you might change your
mind about the possibilities.
I mean what if, just what if you go to the movie see it, and have no
complaints about the medium but a pile about the lighting ?
Of course, sometimes I just think you want to be snide.
--
Alexander Ibrahim
http://www.zenera.com
Wanna quote me ?
http://www.zenera.com/aibrahim/quoteme.html
-------
Send me Spam, a.k.a unsolicited commercial email, and I will bill you
at least $500.
It's legal, unlike SPAM
-------
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3be6d5f2...@news.pacificnet.net...
Alexander Ibrahim
Sony doesn't make those sorts of deals champ. If you read that
somewhere I'd doubt the sources veracity.
The fact is that Sony can't make the damn camera fast enough. They
don't give a damn about a few units they'll sell to filmmakers
regardless of who they may be and where they work. They give Lucas
special support because he PAYS SONY FOR IT.
Imagine that.
Anyway, they sure as hell aren't going to cut anyone in on the margin
for a camera they can't make fast enough. They are getting a premium
OVER MSRP right now for the CineAlta. I mean...that would just be
stupid business LaGuy.
A lot more of these cameras are getting sold to TV producers and
<gasp> news organizations. They don't give a god damn what film people
are using. They are far more interested in archival and linear
editing, compatibility, reliability plus durability. They want to buy
hundreds or thousands of units of the cameras and studio editing
VTR's.
It amazes me the lengths you and others will go to to impugn this
technology.
Wanna prove your point...back it up. With a statement from Sony, Lucas
or both. I think you'll find that your source, if you have one, has a
stake in the failure of the 24P. Heh, you want conspiracy theories...I
say the source of this rumor works for Kodak, Fuji or Both.
--
Alexander Ibrahim
http://www.zenera.com
Wanna quote me ?
http://www.zenera.com/aibrahim/quoteme.html
-------
Send me Spam, a.k.a unsolicited commercial email, and I will bill you
at least $500.
It's legal, unlike SPAM
-------
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3be96f17....@news.pacificnet.net...
Marc Wielage
(in message <3be96f17....@news.pacificnet.net>):
> Nonsense. They went that way because Lucas probably has a deal on the
> cameras that will be sold as a result of his advertising the format.
>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
Go read MILLIMETER from just a month or two ago. SWII producer Rick McCallum
made this statement in there, and I tend to believe him.
I have no idea if Lucasfilm got a deal to use the Panavision HD camera on the
production, and I suspect you don't either. "Probably" doesn't count. I
only know what McCallum has said in interviews, what Tatterrsall told me in
late November of 2000, and what Lucas has said in print.
To me, it makes sense. There are also a lot of other issues that make HDCam
a good idea: longer shoot times without reloading, faster setup, instant
playback, quicker digitizing for Avid, etc. Those may seem like minor
issues, but together, they make a big difference for many producers.
I agree that the picture quality is a major issue. I suspect I've seen more
24P HDCam images than most people here, and I've been color-correcting film
for nearly 25 years now. My gut reaction when I first started seeing 24P
video two years ago (on the Fox show TITUS) was that it looked a lot more
like 35 negative than I thought it would. Now that DPs are learning to use
it properly, we're starting to see decent pictures from HDCam, but it's still
a struggle -- both for the guys lighting it, and for guys like me who have to
try to coax good-looking images out of the finished projects.
BUT: There's also no question to me that, flat out, pretty much every single
episodic TV show will be bailing on film and going with HDCam over the next
3-5 years. I'd just about guarantee it. I feel as strongly about this as I
did when 1" videotape was introduced in 1979, or when D-1 hit LA in 1987, or
when DigiBetacam came out about seven years after that. I know enough to
recognize a trend when I see one, and this one will be significant.
For low-budgeted and independent features, I think HDCam will probably mean
the almost-immediate death of 16mm and Super 16mm, except for unusual
situations. But I don't think HDCam will affect medium-to-high budgeted
features for many years to come, nor do I think HDCam looks every bit as good
as 35mm negative -- not at all. There's still a big difference between
well-exposed 35 and HDCam. Unfortunately, the difference is not enough for
TV networks or studios to spend the extra money to shoot film for television
-- except for very rare higher-budgeted projects and specials.
--Marc Wielage
Marc Wielage
(in message <3BE8E367...@beauty.se>):
> what's up with the "ugly shots" in moulin rouge?
>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
Heck if I know. I've only seen one of the submaster digital videotapes for
home video release, and it was a beautiful, beautiful-looking picture.
I wish I could say I had something to do with the transfer! Looked terrific
to me.
--MFW
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>This is LaGuy's way of saying that he didn't see it, but is
>noentheless qualified to comment on that particular piece of work.
>
>Sometimes LaGuy is insightful, but then he does this crap and just
>seems bigoted.
Sorry but how many miles of 24P footage am I supposed to look at? I
can spot it from a mile away.
>
>LaGuy, I'd like for you to actually see this trailer and then please
>give specific comments.
If I do I will, but I won't go out of my way to see it given I have
every intention not to see the movie.
>See...the HD photography you may have seen elsewhere is probably
>different. The shots in Episode 1 were a first stab at HD for film
>work by Lucas et. al but now we see a more mature/experienced HD
>effort. You can't draw a conclusion based on old evidence in an
>evolving art/science.
Crossing Jordan was shot right now, so was the hideous Witchblade.
>It is a new day, and it is worth your time to see the footage and
>evaluate it...that way you can make intelligent remarks here,
24P is 24P...
>and
>intelligent decisions in your work. You may be right, and then can
>explain yourself to us blind fools. Then again, you might change your
>mind about the possibilities.
>
>I mean what if, just what if you go to the movie see it, and have no
>complaints about the medium but a pile about the lighting ?
I probably would have about both, but I won't pay to see it so there
we are. :) Regarldess Crossing Jordan is pretty well lit and still it
doesn't look like what it'd have looked like on film.
>Of course, sometimes I just think you want to be snide.
I'm just REALLY annoyed to hear for the thousandth time that "you
can't tell the difference" when you can.
La...@la.com
wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 9:29:43 -0800, La...@LA.com wrote
>(in message <3be96f17....@news.pacificnet.net>):
>
>> Nonsense. They went that way because Lucas probably has a deal on the
>> cameras that will be sold as a result of his advertising the format.
>>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
>
>Go read MILLIMETER from just a month or two ago. SWII producer Rick McCallum
>made this statement in there, and I tend to believe him.
I don't. :)
>
>I have no idea if Lucasfilm got a deal to use the Panavision HD camera on the
>production, and I suspect you don't either. "Probably" doesn't count. I
>only know what McCallum has said in interviews, what Tatterrsall told me in
>late November of 2000, and what Lucas has said in print.
Again, if you belive the hype you'll also believe the current rash of
producers cancelling their own shows!
>To me, it makes sense.
That's exactly it. To me the only thing that makes sense is Lucas
trying to make more money.
>There are also a lot of other issues that make HDCam
>a good idea: longer shoot times without reloading, faster setup, instant
>playback, quicker digitizing for Avid, etc. Those may seem like minor
>issues, but together, they make a big difference for many producers.
You were right when thinking they were minor :)
>BUT: There's also no question to me that, flat out, pretty much every single
>episodic TV show will be bailing on film and going with HDCam over the next
>3-5 years.
Hopefully not.
>I'd just about guarantee it.
I pray that you're wrong.
>I feel as strongly about this as I
>did when 1" videotape was introduced in 1979, or when D-1 hit LA in 1987, or
>when DigiBetacam came out about seven years after that.
I'm not sure what you mean. :)
>I know enough to
>recognize a trend when I see one, and this one will be significant.
>
>For low-budgeted and independent features, I think HDCam will probably mean
>the almost-immediate death of 16mm and Super 16mm, except for unusual
>situations. But I don't think HDCam will affect medium-to-high budgeted
>features for many years to come, nor do I think HDCam looks every bit as good
>as 35mm negative -- not at all. There's still a big difference between
>well-exposed 35 and HDCam.
Even on TV!!
Matt Sandstrom
>>what's up with the "ugly shots" in moulin rouge?
> Heck if I know. I've only seen one of the submaster digital videotapes for
> home video release, and it was a beautiful, beautiful-looking picture.
that's the thing. had the whole movie looked like crap i would have just
said "it looked like crap," and not thought more about it. thing is,
about 10 shots were below standard, and that was it. i'm the only one i
know who noticed, so maybe it wasn't so crappy, but the others i went
with weren't exacly cinematographers either.
/matt
La...@la.com
The "proof' is in his actions. Just like the "proof" that he had that
stupid race in TPM in order to sell videogames iis in his actions. :)
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>HA, HA, HA...
>
>Sony doesn't make those sorts of deals champ. If you read that
>somewhere I'd doubt the sources veracity.
>
>The fact is that Sony can't make the damn camera fast enough. They
>don't give a damn about a few units they'll sell to filmmakers
>regardless of who they may be and where they work. They give Lucas
>special support because he PAYS SONY FOR IT.
Sure they do.
>
>Imagine that.
>
>Anyway, they sure as hell aren't going to cut anyone in on the margin
>for a camera they can't make fast enough. They are getting a premium
>OVER MSRP right now for the CineAlta. I mean...that would just be
>stupid business LaGuy.
Sure it would.
>A lot more of these cameras are getting sold to TV producers and
><gasp> news organizations. They don't give a god damn what film people
>are using. They are far more interested in archival and linear
>editing, compatibility, reliability plus durability. They want to buy
>hundreds or thousands of units of the cameras and studio editing
>VTR's.
Doubtless you got all that from company PR. Remember that Phillips
seriously was saying that DCC was selling faster than they ever
expected. Don't remember what DCC is? Exactly. :)
>It amazes me the lengths you and others will go to to impugn this
>technology.
It amazes me the lengths to which people will go to pretend it's "up
to snuff" and "looks just like film" and "is a new standard". It also
amazes me how people swallow PR.
>Wanna prove your point...back it up.
Lucas' actions speak for themselves.
David Mullen
>>you're suggesting that he wanted to shoot on 35mm but Sony presented this
>>"deal" if he would switch to HD.
>
>The "proof' is in his actions.
That's not proof then, nor is it much of an argument. His use of HD
technology could just as easily be proof of a pro-digital, anti-film bias
(well-documented) rather than proof of some financial dealing with Sony to
get a percentage of camera sales (unless you can produce some
documentation).
I'll ask my question again, what's your proof? If I use Fuji film stock,
and am then quoted on a Fuji advertisement that I loved using their stock,
or say so in a magazine interview, is that proof that I'm getting a
percentage of every roll of Fuji film sold?
You have a bad habit of ascribing the worst possible motivations to anyone's
behavior. If a film gets a good review, it's because the reviewer was paid
off. If a film wins an award, it means the winner paid off or is best
friends with the voters. No one would ever give a good review for a film
they liked nor vote for a total stranger an award that they actually feel
they deserve. If Lucas uses HD, it can't possibly be because he likes it --
no, swallowing his distaste for all things digital, he must have been paid
off to tell everyone that he likes it because now he just wants to sell
camcorders for the rest of his life. Wait a minute, I've shot three
features in HD -- where's MY check from Sony???
Can't you even entertain the slightest possible chance that Lucas actually
WANTED to shoot Epidode 2 digitally? He's only been talking and talking
about doing so for a couple of decades, and now that it happens, you think
he did it only to make some money from sales of Sony camcorders rather than
the notion that's he acting on a long-held and much publicized belief system
that film is an outmoded method of making movies. Now James Cameron's been
hyping HD as well -- I wonder what percentage of the camcorder sales will go
to him? And there's Michael Mann's tinier percentage for using some HD for
"Ali"... Oh, and Roy Wagner chose 24P HD for "Pasadena" -- did Sony buy him
a car or a yacht?
David Mullen
Don Dempsey
didn't care for in TPM? Not trying to start an argument, just curious...
the don
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3be96f17....@news.pacificnet.net...
La...@la.com
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>It would be nice if you could present proof for such a claim. Otherwise,
>>>you're suggesting that he wanted to shoot on 35mm but Sony presented this
>>>"deal" if he would switch to HD.
>>
>>The "proof' is in his actions.
>
>That's not proof then, nor is it much of an argument.
In your mind maybe :))
>You have a bad habit of ascribing the worst possible motivations to anyone's
>behavior. If a film gets a good review, it's because the reviewer was paid
>off.
That's the truth in most cases.
>If a film wins an award, it means the winner paid off or is best
>friends with the voters.
Again, the truth in most cases, with the caveat that voters also vote
with the interest of the organization in mind.
>No one would ever give a good review for a film
>they liked nor vote for a total stranger an award that they actually feel
>they deserve.
I never said that. There are exceptions, but in general, yes. You
can tell by who gets the awards. "Dune" was really bad work and yet
won an emmy because the emmy voters like to give awards to "big
theatrical names". It's as simple as that. The lack of quality of
the work did not enter into their "reasoning" if they even bothered to
look at it.
>If Lucas uses HD, it can't possibly be because he likes it --
You've got a point. His career shows he wouldn't recognize good
photography from bad photography.
>no, swallowing his distaste for all things digital, he must have been paid
>off to tell everyone that he likes it because now he just wants to sell
>camcorders for the rest of his life.
Your words, not mine.
> Wait a minute, I've shot three
>features in HD -- where's MY check from Sony???
You're not a "name". They won't care about you. With all due respect
:))
>Can't you even entertain the slightest possible chance that Lucas actually
>WANTED to shoot Epidode 2 digitally? He's only been talking and talking
>about doing so for a couple of decades, and now that it happens, you think
>he did it only to make some money from sales of Sony camcorders rather than
>the notion that's he acting on a long-held and much publicized belief system
>that film is an outmoded method of making movies.
His motives are assuredly a lot less noble.
>Now James Cameron's been
>hyping HD as well -- I wonder what percentage of the camcorder sales will go
>to him?
I wonder too ;)
>And there's Michael Mann's tinier percentage for using some HD for
>"Ali"... Oh, and Roy Wagner chose 24P HD for "Pasadena" -- did Sony buy him
>a car or a yacht?
Probably not. Stupid productions like Pasadena are the ones who pay
for the whole thing by using inferior products to save a few pennies.
Thankfully Pasadena will disappear soon from our screens. Also, I
don't believe the DP is the person making the choice. The producers
did.
La...@la.com
<ddem...@nospam.acteksoft.com> wrote:
>LaGuy, what are some specific examples of Tattersall's cinematography you
>didn't care for in TPM? Not trying to start an argument, just curious...
Pretty much the whole thing. It was flat, and generally pretty ugly
looking. I can't say I remember much details about the film as I had
started to try and forget this mascarade the moment I left the
theater.
Eric J. Smith
Literally.
There are other issues of archiving and such that I will not even begin to
lambaste in this post.
The pleasure one finds in the aesthetic of film is solely a psychological
phenomenon. (There are issues of contrast range and color reproduction, but
I have enough faith in science to believe that technology will catch up with
these issues soon if they have not already). We love the look of film
because we have grown up with it, we feel safe with it, much in the same way
we continue to eat (and sometimes crave) the fast food at the corporate
chain, whose mascot is a clown, despite the very obvious reality that the
food has a nasty flavor, and is of poor quality. It's grown on us, or
rather we've grown on it.
We have grown to love the warmth and softness of the film image. There was
(and still is) an issue with the differences between the Kodak and Fuji film
stocks. Kodak balances it's emulsions for an Occidental's preference
(generally warmer tones), and Fuji balances theirs for an Oriental's
preference (generally cooler tones). Over time though, these stocks are
becoming homogenized, and is creating a new "dumbed-down" aesthetic. (In my
opinion this is bad since it reduces the options for an artist. More on
this later).
So, back to the bastard.
Video manufacturers are working hard to reproduce the look of film, and, in
doing so, they are destroying the soul of it's creation. It's bastardizing
the format, since it is denying it's heritage. Such an approach will only
result in it's stunted growth. They are denying any possibility for their
format to find it's own voice, or mature personality, or soul.
To hell with 24fps! There's problems with that frame rate anyway.
Hey Video! Be your own man!!! and let film be.
An artist (since we are talking about cinema, and since I'm hoping that
we're not talking about replacing artists with engineers) needs to have
options from which to work from. Different film stocks, formats, and such
are the tools that an artist uses; not time coded images and digital
distribution and projection.
An artist's job is to reproduce a subject, onto an object; and he can only
do this with a thorough knowledge of both subject and object. The subject
includes the environment and the action. The object is the artist's medium,
which in film is the physical piece of celluloid. Putting an image on this
piece of celluloid is what constitutes the cinematographer as a creative,
and it is his thorough knowledge of this medium to manipulate it in a
fashion to achieve an intended response, along with it's implementation,
which transcends his status to an artist.
A cinematographer can understand the very real and tangible connections his
medium, film, has to the real material world. Light comes in through a
lens, is blocked by a rotating mirror, when the mirror passes it exposes the
the light sensitive material to light, and when that material is processed
through a few steps in a lab, made up of real, physical material, an image
is born that all can see (inclusive) and share in it's glory. Film is an
open-ended system. There are an infinite number of possibilities from which
a cinematographer can choose to manipulate his medium.
A videographer can only hope to understand all the technical issues involved
in creating a video image through abstract ideas that have little to no
connection to the real world. As light enters a lens it hits a light
sensitive computer chip which somehow changes it into a very low voltage
current that travels through thousands of components and is manipulated into
a signal that is an electronic representation of millions of ones and zeros
that is recorded onto a magnetic tape. You can't see the image, not unless
you have a way to decode it (exclusive). It's all very abstract! Video is
also a closed-ended system. There are a finite number of menu settings
available to the technician/engineer from which he is allowed to create.
Yes, I know this all sounds very spiritual, but art is a spiritual pursuit,
and we are spiritual creatures, living in and creating a world of depleting
spiritual values, as we had horribly experienced on September eleventh. A
spiritual system that is based on the abstract, rather than the material
world, will decay into the chaos of a magic spell based, hocus-pocus world.
One of the spiritual precepts on which democracy, justice, and the pursuit
of happiness are based on is that man is dignified and deserves dignity in
this world because he is created in the image of G-d. A dignified man can
not be a slave to any other man, institution, or machine. A man can only be
a master over that which he knows organically. (Please be a master over
your dictionary before you criticize me about this paragraph).
Can a man organically know the craft of film? I believe that to be
predominantly yes. Man is master in the open-ended creative act of
filmmaking.
Can a man organically know the craft of video? I would be very skeptical of
anyone who would say that they have the sensibility of an artist while
possessing this knowledge. Man is a slave to the closed-ended system of
video production.
Give the bastard a soul, and let's not destroy the soul of cinema.
Eric J. Smith
Director/Director of Photography
e...@PuritanFilms.com
David Mullen
>predominantly yes. Man is master in the open-ended creative act of
>filmmaking.
>
>Can a man organically know the craft of video? I would be very skeptical
of
>anyone who would say that they have the sensibility of an artist while
>possessing this knowledge. Man is a slave to the closed-ended system of
>video production.
I apply the same aesthetics, the same creativity in lighting, exposing,
composition, coloring, etc. when making a feature in video or film -- the
differences are mainly technical adjustments for the more limited exposure
latitude of video. But other film processes also have more limited tonal
response -- reversal film, skip-bleached processed negative or print stock,
etc. The notion that I am possibly no longer an artist at work once I
switch to using video is not only unsupportable, but downright nonsensical.
In fact, it's impossible for me NOT to apply the same artistic mindset to
the films I photograph just because of a change in the recording medium.
To say that you're skeptical of a videographer having a deep knowledge of
his craft AND the sensibility of an artist is insulting to video shooters to
say the least.
Why is the soul of cinema inexorably linked to a photochemical image
process? We're talking about telling stories through the artful use of
light & shade, color, movement, and composition; why should that not be
possible using electronic technologies?
Wake up and look around you -- film and video technologies have been merging
for decades now! It's nearly impossible to discuss them as separate
entities. We have film transferred to digital, digital transferred to film,
film transferred to digital and back to film again, film transferred to
digital and digitally projected, film transferred to digital and merged with
computer-generated images, etc. Basically you're suggesting that as soon as
the filmmaking process starts to incorporate any digital processing -- even
a simple transfer from neg to video -- the artistry ends because it's
impossible to possess a complete knowledge of the digital process yet still
act as an artist. Only an all-film approach -- neg to print -- allows man
to "organically know the craft of film", otherwise he becomes a "slave to a
close-ended system" at the moment involves any non-film technology that he
cannot understand completely.
The truth is that there are a lot of DP's who don't even understand film
technology completely and still produce decent images. I'm still unclear on
using LAD numbers at the lab, so I guess that means I'm not "organically"
involved with the film process? There are cinematographers who are much
more knowledgable about the photochemical process who can't shoot an
artistically interesting image to save their lives. There are others who
are practically idiot savants, technically speaking, who manage to create
amazing artistic works.
Did it ever occur to you that the passing of light through a lens onto a
photoreceptor that converts light into electrical signals is MORE similar to
how our brain and eye works than the reaction of silver halide to light and
the formation of silver & dye in developing chemicals?
To say that the "soul" of cinema will be destroyed by a change from
photochemical imaging to electronic imaging is to place WAY too much
emphasis on technology, even to go so far as to romanticize the process over
the results. Was the soul of painting ruined by the introduction of oil
paints, and then later, inorganic acrylic paints? Was the soul of writing
ruined by the emergence of word processors?
"A spiritual system that is based on the abstract, rather than the material
world, will decay into the chaos of a magic spell based, hocus-pocus world."
It seems to me that YOU'RE the one indulging in hocus-pocus, magic-based,
fuzzy-logic thinking in trying to ascribe greater spiritual qualities to one
method of image creation over another.
And to me, a spiritual system seems by its nature to be based on the
abstract, not the material, unless you actually believe the soul to be a
definable physical object... A system based on the observation of physical
reality seems to me to be a scientific system, while spirituality covers
those non-physical areas where science does not apply. It wouldn't be
called "Faith" if it was scientifically provable, would it?
As for the artistic process, it resides in the artist, not in the technology
he employs, unless you are a romantic sort who likes to ascribe spiritual
qualities to technological processes. That's fine, but to say it can only
lie in photochemical imaging but not electronic imaging is arbitrary to say
the least.
David Mullen
David Mullen
>don't believe the DP is the person making the choice. The producers
>did.
No, the producers wanted to shoot the show in Super-16, but Roy Wagner,
having had to deal with dirt & dust fixes for his last Super-16 TV show,
"Cracker", and feeling that that grittier look was not appropriate for
"Pasadena", convinced them to let him use 24P HD.
David Mullen
Eric J. Smith
> composition, coloring, etc. when making a feature in video or film -- the
> differences are mainly technical adjustments for the more limited exposure
> latitude of video. But other film processes also have more limited tonal
> response -- reversal film, skip-bleached processed negative or print stock,
> etc. The notion that I am possibly no longer an artist at work once I
> switch to using video is not only unsupportable, but downright nonsensical.
> In fact, it's impossible for me NOT to apply the same artistic mindset to
> the films I photograph just because of a change in the recording medium.
That's great that you apply the same aesthetics. My point was that an
artist works in a material world, and he uses the material out of that world
to connect with a humanity who comes from the same material world. (Read
Alan Watts, "Does it Matter?")
> To say that you're skeptical of a videographer having a deep knowledge of
> his craft AND the sensibility of an artist is insulting to video shooters to
> say the least.
If the shoe fits... (and it more often than not does in my opinion)
I shoot video also. I'm not saying, and maybe I made myself unclear (it
won't be the first time), that video can not be a tool and approached in an
artistic manner, but it is a very seriously limited tool. What I am saying
is that it is vastly inferior to film. Will it take over film in the
marketplace? I have little faith in corporate bureaucracies, and I must say
that I'm sure video will rule. Does that change my position. No.
> Why is the soul of cinema inexorably linked to a photochemical image
> process? We're talking about telling stories through the artful use of
> light & shade, color, movement, and composition; why should that not be
> possible using electronic technologies?
As you know, these are only a few elements of the craft. It sounds as if
you're saying the ends justifies the means. I would disagree.
<snore>
> Wake up and look around you --
Oh! Geesh! Thanks!
>film and video technologies have been merging
> for decades now! It's nearly impossible to discuss them as separate
> entities. We have film transferred to digital, digital transferred to film,
> film transferred to digital and back to film again, film transferred to
> digital and digitally projected, film transferred to digital and merged with
> computer-generated images, etc. Basically you're suggesting that as soon as
> the filmmaking process starts to incorporate any digital processing -- even
> a simple transfer from neg to video -- the artistry ends because it's
> impossible to possess a complete knowledge of the digital process yet still
> act as an artist. Only an all-film approach -- neg to print -- allows man
> to "organically know the craft of film", otherwise he becomes a "slave to a
> close-ended system" at the moment involves any non-film technology that he
> cannot understand completely.
YES!!! That's exactly what I'm saying!!! Thank you!!!
And you need not look any further than most all of the products that
Hollywood is churning out, promoting their special effects, to see that
there is a spiritual void in their product. (No, I'm not talking about G-d
or some form of religious propaganda). While the aesthetic may be becoming
more and more refined, the soul of the art, the content, is going to hell,
and I would attribute that, in part, to our disconnected-ness to the
material world.
> The truth is that there are a lot of DP's who don't even understand film
> technology completely and still produce decent images. I'm still unclear on
> using LAD numbers at the lab, so I guess that means I'm not "organically"
> involved with the film process? There are cinematographers who are much
> more knowledgable about the photochemical process who can't shoot an
> artistically interesting image to save their lives. There are others who
> are practically idiot savants, technically speaking, who manage to create
> amazing artistic works.
I would concur. There is the element of intuition that is at play in those
idiot savants. There is also a much closer link to man with film than video
in which intuition may live.
Video has become too cheap, too easy, and has prescribed a predetermined
result to it's product. Look at what the industrial revolution has done to
man. It has removed him from a real connection to the world in which he
lives. No longer is he organically involved in the process of making his
well-being, but in the name of technology, we give him a closed set of
parameters that he is allowed to work in, unable to break out of it, unable
to be free. We've all seen the pictures and/or shot industrials in
factories where people are doing mindless work day in and day out. Yes,
they may be happy on the surface with their 3 weeks vacation, 401k plan, and
weekends at the lake, but are they reaching their full potential? (Read
Dostoyevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor", it's a section in "The Brothers
Karamazov"). We use the excuse that G-d is dead, but would it not be more
true that man is dead? and the culprit for his murder? A closed-ended
system of technology.
> Did it ever occur to you that the passing of light through a lens onto a
> photoreceptor that converts light into electrical signals is MORE similar to
> how our brain and eye works than the reaction of silver halide to light and
> the formation of silver & dye in developing chemicals?
Yes, and when you can explain to me that mystery, I will lay down my motion
picture film camera, and purchase an HD video camera since I will then have
an "organic" understanding of it.
> To say that the "soul" of cinema will be destroyed by a change from
> photochemical imaging to electronic imaging is to place WAY too much
> emphasis on technology, even to go so far as to romanticize the process over
> the results. Was the soul of painting ruined by the introduction of oil
> paints, and then later, inorganic acrylic paints? Was the soul of writing
> ruined by the emergence of word processors?
Good example for making my point. Could/would you attribute a picture
created in Illustrator and/or Photoshop the same artistic values that you
would a Picasso or Caravagio? I hope not! Or how about Ansel Adams?!?!
Please say no.
Ends justifies means again. I disagree. And who's over-emphasizing
technology in the grand scheme of things??? I hope you're not pointing your
finger my direction.
> It seems to me that YOU'RE the one indulging in hocus-pocus, magic-based,
> fuzzy-logic thinking in trying to ascribe greater spiritual qualities to one
> method of image creation over another.
>
> And to me, a spiritual system seems by its nature to be based on the
> abstract, not the material, unless you actually believe the soul to be a
> definable physical object... A system based on the observation of physical
> reality seems to me to be a scientific system, while spirituality covers
> those non-physical areas where science does not apply. It wouldn't be
> called "Faith" if it was scientifically provable, would it?
Your assumption of me is wrong. I don't believe that a soul can live
without a physical life to attach itself to. A spirit? maybe, but we're
not talking about spirits here...that's a whole other issue.
I believe we are spiritual beings because we live in a very real and
physical reality, and have foreknowledge of what this ultimately means.
I don't believe in a hocus-pocus spiritual realm as it seems you do. You
want the physical and spiritual realms to be in dualistic opposition in
nature. That's hocus-pocus, magical, non-logical thinking in my book.
("Realm" is such a poor word choice here too).
> As for the artistic process, it resides in the artist, not in the technology
> he employs, unless you are a romantic sort who likes to ascribe spiritual
> qualities to technological processes. That's fine, but to say it can only
> lie in photochemical imaging but not electronic imaging is arbitrary to say
> the least.
The artistic process does not reside solely in the artist. The artist must
put himself into his art, and become one with it. So yes, the process is a
spiritual issue, because I don't believe the spiritual and material worlds
are separable.
David Mullen
>created in Illustrator and/or Photoshop the same artistic values that you
>would a Picasso or Caravagio? I hope not! Or how about Ansel Adams?!?!
>Please say no.
Not being a connoisseur of computer-generated art (or modern graphic art in
general) I can't comment on who the great artists are in that area, nor has
enough time passed to judge many of these works with an unbiased eye. But
just look at history... I will remind you that photography was considered an
unartistic medium when it came out (even filmmaking too) and it took a lot
of time and effort to convince the culture at large that photography and
cinema could be used for works of art.
You run the risk of sounding like the early detractors of photography who
refused to believe that a process which seemed to merely record what was
placed in front of the camera could be "art" to the same degree that a
painting could. Time has proven those people wrong. A hundred years from
now, I'm sure someone will get a chuckle from reading essays about how
digital images were less artistic than photo-chemical ones.
I'm just not willing to insult people by telling them which mediums are more
artistic than others -- it would be like saying that oil painting is a
greater art form than pastel drawing, or that sculpting in marble is
superior to casting in bronze. Capturing an image using chemical reactions
instead of photoreceptor cells may produce different visual qualities -- and
one can certainly describe film as being "organic" compared to the more
"plastic" look of electronic imaging, but I'm not going to ascribe any
generalized ideas that one method is a better medium for artists to use than
others.
>>Only an all-film approach -- neg to print -- allows man
>>to "organically know the craft of film", otherwise he becomes a "slave to
a
>>close-ended system" at the moment involves any non-film technology that he
>>cannot understand completely.
>YES!!! That's exactly what I'm saying!!! Thank you!!!
So basically Roger Deakin's lowered the artistic value of "O Brother Where
Art Thou" by employing digital means to achieve the color palette he wanted?
We should all just stick to film-based technologies if we want to create
cinematic art, even if a digital tool would allow us to achieve our intended
look? I'm sorry, but this is a very limited view of what art can be (and
film).
I guess I'm saying that the ends DO justify the means -- either the end
result is a work of art or it isn't, regardless of what unorthodox
techniques the artist might have employed to get there. The technical
process itself is no guarantee of artistic value. You're basically implying
that traditional film-based methods are the only path to cinematic art; to
me, that's not much different than the arguments against sound in 1927 or
full-color in 1935. In "Film As Art", Arnheim tried to argue that sound was
merely a redundant element -- if we SEE someone laughing, it's unartistic to
actually HEAR him laughing as well. Now we all admit that sound can be an
effective artistic tool and so can color -- it doesn't diminish the art of
silent cinema or b&w photography to say so, nor is film diminished in value
because digital techniques can also be effective artistic tools.
And what about television? You can't see film directly on TV; it has to be
converted into an electronic signal. So cinematographers who shoot for film
projection can be "total" artists but cinematographers who shoot for
transfer to video can't be because they can't "organically know" their craft
anymore, due to the introduction of an electronic stage that is mysterious
and unknowable? And if I point out that artistic images HAVE been created
for television, that's irrelevant because the ends don't justify the
means???
Basically you've come up with a limited definition of what art can be, and
then decided that video can't be a part of that definition, so therefore it
can be considered a medium unsuitable for artistic expression. It's a
closed-loop argument (and therefore I won't waste anymore time arguing
against it.)
David Mullen
Eric J. Smith
> refused to believe that a process which seemed to merely record what was
> placed in front of the camera could be "art" to the same degree that a
> painting could. Time has proven those people wrong. A hundred years from
> now, I'm sure someone will get a chuckle from reading essays about how
> digital images were less artistic than photo-chemical ones.
Well, let's look at the early forms of photography. If it were used to put
a painting in front of a camera to, for all practical purposes, reproduce an
image, then yes, there was no artistic value in the photography. There was
a period where the photograph had to find it's voice, or soul. Once we
would have gotten past this issue, then I would have been fine with it,
because I do believe it to be an artistic medium. I may sound like one of
those early detractors of photography because I'm not jumping into the boat
right away, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong in this context. This is a
completely different context, and the reason this is so, I've stated
earlier.
> I'm just not willing to insult people by telling them which mediums are more
> artistic than others -- it would be like saying that oil painting is a
> greater art form than pastel drawing, or that sculpting in marble is
> superior to casting in bronze.
In those examples, I wouldn't dare say it either. If you added working in
an Adobe application, I would. There is a big difference between art and
design.
I'm not out to insult people, I'm out to raise questions with them to
reexamine the philosophies on which they build from. If your foundation is
bad, it's better to go back now and fix it, before you build your whole
house on it.
>Capturing an image using chemical reactions
> instead of photoreceptor cells may produce different visual qualities -- and
> one can certainly describe film as being "organic" compared to the more
> "plastic" look of electronic imaging, but I'm not going to ascribe any
> generalized ideas that one method is a better medium for artists to use than
> others.
Okay. I will...and you should too.
> So basically Roger Deakin's lowered the artistic value of "O Brother Where
> Art Thou" by employing digital means to achieve the color palette he wanted?
> We should all just stick to film-based technologies if we want to create
> cinematic art, even if a digital tool would allow us to achieve our intended
> look? I'm sorry, but this is a very limited view of what art can be (and
> film).
Um, yeah. I'm sorry I feel this way Mr. Deakin's, with all due respect (and
you do deserve a lot). I'm not saying that I could or couldn't do any
better with or without his resources (that's an issue that's not relevant
here), but I hold him much more accountable since he has the Mr. Deakin's
name.
Unfortunately, as cynical as it is, I believe that it all comes down to the
number of beans it takes to make the chili. (A metaphor pointing to the
economics of filmmaking).
Let's say this. A chef is to prepare a meal that is flavorful and colorful.
Would you feel cheated...scratch that, feelings aren't the issue here....
Would you ascribe to a chef that his work was a masterpiece (and that's what
a work of art is) if he used artificial flavors and coloring? Hell no you
wouldn't. You would expect him to begin with materials of the highest
quality, and then you would expect him to know how to prepare these
"natural" items without using "unnatural" processes to achieve his
masterpiece
> I guess I'm saying that the ends DO justify the means -- either the end
> result is a work of art or it isn't, regardless of what unorthodox
> techniques the artist might have employed to get there. The technical
> process itself is no guarantee of artistic value. You're basically implying
> that traditional film-based methods are the only path to cinematic art; to
> me, that's not much different than the arguments against sound in 1927 or
> full-color in 1935. In "Film As Art", Arnheim tried to argue that sound was
> merely a redundant element -- if we SEE someone laughing, it's unartistic to
> actually HEAR him laughing as well. Now we all admit that sound can be an
> effective artistic tool and so can color -- it doesn't diminish the art of
> silent cinema or b&w photography to say so, nor is film diminished in value
> because digital techniques can also be effective artistic tools.
Sounds as if Arnheim had the right idea. I'm also talking about art. I'm
not talking about photographic "design". Back to your unsound sound
example... You didn't discredit what Arnheim said about sound. All you
said, or rather implied, was that such an approach to sound was not
commercially accepted. I would say the same thing, as I said in earlier
posts, that film is the basis of the art, but video is what is becoming
commercially accepted as the medium of acquisition. I find that to be a
very sad state of affairs.
How I feel about Arnheim's idea? I would agree with him. How is it
possible to make it more commercially viable AND artistic? Hear the person
laugh, but what we see is this wealthy woman laughing hysterically while a
waiter is picking out the spaghetti in her husbands hair, while in the
background we see a small child in ragged clothes staring in the restaurants
window at a lone meatball sitting on the dirty floor. This makes the laugh
say infinitely more in the context of the visual.
And I still do not believe that the end ever justifies the means, and I hope
that our government, medical professionals, police, taxi drivers, film
producers, and chef's don't act upon that philosophy either.
> And what about television? You can't see film directly on TV; it has to be
> converted into an electronic signal. So cinematographers who shoot for film
> projection can be "total" artists but cinematographers who shoot for
> transfer to video can't be because they can't "organically know" their craft
> anymore, due to the introduction of an electronic stage that is mysterious
> and unknowable? And if I point out that artistic images HAVE been created
> for television, that's irrelevant because the ends don't justify the
> means???
No, artistic images have been produced for the television screen, but the
act of creating art stops when the methodology becomes unknowable. From
that point on, until it can become knowable again, it's a design that is
limited to the closed-ended systems that it is captivated within.
> Basically you've come up with a limited definition of what art can be, and
> then decided that video can't be a part of that definition, so therefore it
> can be considered a medium unsuitable for artistic expression. It's a
> closed-loop argument (and therefore I won't waste anymore time arguing
> against it.)
There is a big difference between art and creative design.
That's fine, but I'm willing to carry on in the dialogue. Thanks for the
discussion.
Eric
John Fromes
> can spot it from a mile away.
Apparently you can spot it without even looking at it ! "I don't have
to see it to know it sucks...."
Keep that open mindedness. Maybe the 4th Reich will start and you can
join in there too. Or do you not need to SEE it to know that it's for
you ?
As for another great example of HDCAM looking good, the TV show 100
Centre Street on A&E is shot entirely High Def and looks amazing. And
it does not look like video at all.
La...@la.com
wrote:
>> Sorry but how many miles of 24P footage am I supposed to look at? I
>> can spot it from a mile away.
>
>Apparently you can spot it without even looking at it ! "I don't have
>to see it to know it sucks...."
I've seen enough of it to be able to tell it's not "up to snuff" IMO.
Again, I don't need to watch hours and hours more of it to find that
out.
>Keep that open mindedness. Maybe the 4th Reich will start and you can
>join in there too. Or do you not need to SEE it to know that it's for
>you ?
Amazing. Not liking 24P is akin to being a Nazi in your mind.
Are you completely insane or just unaware of what you just wrote?
>As for another great example of HDCAM looking good, the TV show 100
>Centre Street on A&E is shot entirely High Def and looks amazing. And
>it does not look like video at all.
What I saw of it does look like video.
La...@la.com
wrote:
[snip]
What you wrote is one of the saddest things I've ever read. :((((
John Fromes
specific trailer, one that you said you don't need to see to know it
does not look like film.
You are a moron.
I'm amazed you have the education of a 3rd grader.
La...@la.com
decent thing and apologize. You chose not to. I won't waste any
more time paying you any attention.
On 10 Nov 2001 18:43:14 -0800, johnf...@excite.com (John Fromes)
wrote:
[snip of nonsense]
Alexander Ibrahim
outset on this one.
Until you see the trailer your comments on the trailer are a waste of
bandwidth at best.
As to your claim that you can tell from a mile away...I would love to
sit down with you and some some footage I shoot in 35 and HD shown on
35mm projector, a DLP projector and a monitor and see just how good
you are at telling.
I think your BS'ing big time. I think the over riding influence in the
images we would look at is ME the cinematographer/operator. I know
that when I look at HD and 35 that I shoot what I see is ME, very
rarely do I see HD or 35 or DV...I just see lighting decisions,
subjects, framings....all these things expressing a bunch of things I
will just call a vision.
Art transcends medium. I would say my very best work is on MiniDV
tape...and my worst is on 35mm. I can do good work with any medium I
get, but I like to interact so video is more fun for me...I get to
really see what I am doing to my image as I move lights change
exposures...it suits me and my way of expression.
In the past, LaGuy, you have said that when you see acceptable or good
work on DV or HD you just think about how much better it would have
been on 35. BAH. I can tell you that I would never create images I get
from video on 35.
35mm is to me an anti-artistic medium. The key there is "to me." 35
takes away the ability to experiment...to play...to interact
organically with the end product.
DV is fun, if limiting. HD is downright exciting to me...I know it is
not "as good" as 35mm, but I can make better images with it
consistently. So...the end is my vision, the medium is just how I get
there.
Do I want HD to rule forever ? Hell NO!!! I want better video formats.
I want more resolution, even more latitude, more colorspace and even
more more, but I want video. So...I look to the future.
I want one day for healthy human vision eyes and imagination to be the
limit in filmmaking...not the medium. Looking forward, digital video
technologies lead toward that goal far better than film.
Of course, I suppose I am feeding the trolls now...
Alex
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3bee4aa8....@news.pacificnet.net...
Alexander Ibrahim
Sony is a publicly traded company. Go look up their SEC filings...they
will tell you very accurately every year what is going on at any
publicly traded company.
Lying carries jail/prison terms for all involved and heavy fines. No
marketing allowed. If the SEC has questions they can, will and have
halted stocks of even the largest companies. As a result forms filed
with the SEC tend to be VERY reliable sources of information.
Oh, yeah in case you were wondering...all these forms are available
from the SEC for a small fee in dead tree format, or you can just use
the SEC website (sec.gov) to SEARCH the forms and read away online.
Sorry LaGuy, you are just plain ol' wrong. Clearly you don't
understand the business.
The HDCAM products are driven by the US conversion over the next few
years to high definition broadcast. Not Lucas or film makers but news
agencies.
How many HDCAM decks and cameras could be sold if everyone in
Hollywood starting using HDCAM exclusively tomorrow ?
About a tenth as many as if NBC bought into HDCAM for just its major
market news production. At ABC 27 in Harrisburg PA they have a lot of
BetaSP decks and cameras. About 50 SP decks, 10-15 SP cameras.
Now..Harrisburg is a small market in a fairly bland news town. Think
about WABC 7 in Washington DC might have. Now think of each of those
decks and cameras being replaced with an HD unit.
Sony already owns the news video space with Betacam SP. If anything a
lack of vision at Sony has caused a plethora of new formats and caused
great discomfiture in the SD news market...HDCAM is settling those
fears.
Sony doesn't care that you don't care for HD. They are worried that
Panasonic will make inroads by selling DVCPRO product to their
(Sony's) news clients. Panasonic already has some big wins.
Back to cinema...new technology breeds new techniques and new work
shows it. In the "early" HD film days on Episode 1, they lit a film
set and pointed an HD camera at it...now they are lighting HD sets for
their HD cameras...it is starting to be a subtle but profound
change...lots of little things change, some better a few worse most
just different...but the end product is quite different.
It has to be seen to be commented on.
So, back to you panning HD...who do you work for LaGuy ? Kodak or Fuji
? Both ?
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3beabe86....@news.pacificnet.net...
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>No, I am sorry LaGuy but you are dead wrong and have been from the
>outset on this one.
>
>Until you see the trailer your comments on the trailer are a waste of
>bandwidth at best.
Sorry but 24P is not going to magically "look like film" and no I'm
not going to waste my time finding a theater that plays "the trailer",
especially as I really don't want to see it just like the movie.
>As to your claim that you can tell from a mile away...I would love to
>sit down with you and some some footage I shoot in 35 and HD shown on
>35mm projector, a DLP projector and a monitor and see just how good
>you are at telling.
I can tell on a TV screen. No need for that fancy equipment. I can
even tell when I'm not trying to tell (except for that Night Visions
show, they did so much video treatment in post the thing looked like
they had shot it with a camcorder :).
>I think your BS'ing big time. I think the over riding influence in the
>images we would look at is ME the cinematographer/operator. I know
>that when I look at HD and 35 that I shoot what I see is ME, very
>rarely do I see HD or 35 or DV...
As I think I said before, the fact that YOU can't see it doesn't mean
it's not painfully obvious to others. Just like some people don't
even notice when a bug destroys every frame of a TV show.
>just see lighting decisions,
>subjects, framings....all these things expressing a bunch of things I
>will just call a vision.
>
>Art transcends medium. I would say my very best work is on MiniDV
>tape...and my worst is on 35mm.
I'm sorry to hear that :(
>I can do good work with any medium I
>get, but I like to interact so video is more fun for me...I get to
>really see what I am doing to my image as I move lights change
>exposures...it suits me and my way of expression.
>
>In the past, LaGuy, you have said that when you see acceptable or good
>work on DV or HD you just think about how much better it would have
>been on 35. BAH.
Well, that IS how I feel whenever I see the great lighting direction
on re-runs of Home Improvement.
>I can tell you that I would never create images I get
>from video on 35.
>
>35mm is to me an anti-artistic medium.
That's your prerogative to feel that way. I don't quite understand
where it's coming from though.
>The key there is "to me." 35
>takes away the ability to experiment...to play...to interact
>organically with the end product.
>
>DV is fun, if limiting. HD is downright exciting to me...I know it is
>not "as good" as 35mm, but I can make better images with it
>consistently. So...the end is my vision, the medium is just how I get
>there.
It just sounds like you need to learn more about using film. :)
>Do I want HD to rule forever ? Hell NO!!! I want better video formats.
>I want more resolution, even more latitude, more colorspace and even
>more more, but I want video. So...I look to the future.
I look to the present and near future, and all I see is the prospect
of more shows that won't look as good as they could.
>I want one day for healthy human vision eyes and imagination to be the
>limit in filmmaking...not the medium. Looking forward, digital video
>technologies lead toward that goal far better than film.
>
>Of course, I suppose I am feeding the trolls now...
LOL :))
>
>Alex
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
BTW, you should be commended for your ability to state your opinion in
a polite and clear manner. :) That's becoming all too rare. :((((
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>PR Schmee R...
>
>Sony is a publicly traded company. Go look up their SEC filings...they
>will tell you very accurately every year what is going on at any
>publicly traded company.
I'm guessing from that remark that you may never have seen a public
report. You should see one. It will enlighten you as to what is and
isn't included.
>Lying carries jail/prison terms for all involved and heavy fines.
Where would they be "lying"? Whatever payoffs are accounted for in
the "cost of product".
>No
>marketing allowed.
Now I don't follow you. Are you saying Sony doesn't do marketing?
>If the SEC has questions they can, will and have
>halted stocks of even the largest companies.
Why would they? It's perfectly legal for them to pay people who help
them with promotion. Just like they right now give away video cameras
to people they think will give them exposure.
>As a result forms filed
>with the SEC tend to be VERY reliable sources of information.
And they'll tell you nothing about what I'm talking about.
>Oh, yeah in case you were wondering...all these forms are available
>from the SEC for a small fee in dead tree format, or you can just use
>the SEC website (sec.gov) to SEARCH the forms and read away online.
Did you? I don't mean to be rude, but what are you expecting to see?
Detailed accounting of every project? You'll see none of that.
Nobody does that in SEC filings.
>Sorry LaGuy, you are just plain ol' wrong. Clearly you don't
>understand the business.
Sorry, but I seem to understand it a lot better than you do. Go to
those links and look at the reports. You'll see what they really
include.
>The HDCAM products are driven by the US conversion over the next few
>years to high definition broadcast. Not Lucas or film makers but news
>agencies.
>
>How many HDCAM decks and cameras could be sold if everyone in
>Hollywood starting using HDCAM exclusively tomorrow ?
Hollywood can still be used to make the camera "sexy". After all that
how Dolby bacame "sexy" for tape decks, and they made a lot of money
from it.
>Sony doesn't care that you don't care for HD.
Good for them. :) I also don't care much what Sony thinks. :)
>Back to cinema...new technology breeds new techniques and new work
>shows it. In the "early" HD film days on Episode 1, they lit a film
>set and pointed an HD camera at it...now they are lighting HD sets for
>their HD cameras...it is starting to be a subtle but profound
>change...lots of little things change, some better a few worse most
>just different...but the end product is quite different.
The Crappy Menace was different all right. A twenty year step
backwards as it failed to match the quality of TESB on every level (I
know it's a very high goal but still).
>It has to be seen to be commented on.
24P is 24P.
>So, back to you panning HD...who do you work for LaGuy ? Kodak or Fuji
>? Both ?
I wish. I could get free stock :))))
Fett
There is no difference between what I saw, and something that
originated on film. It looked amazing.
24p rules.
John Fromes
Actually, the saddest thing ever written is the fact that you claim to
be so incredible that you can tell what a trailer looks like without
seeing it.
Try having an open mind & maybe you will be able to live a fruitful
life.
Art is art regardless of format.
La...@la.com
A usual, because you are willingly blind to it, doesn't mean the
difference isn't quite obvious. :)
Fett
but if you did, what differences did you notice ???
Alexander Ibrahim
I do disagree with you on about a billion things, I find your position
dogmatic in some ways...but I know you have reasons behind even your
most dogmatic views. I can respect that, even if I do not understand
or agree.
--
Alexander Ibrahim
http://www.zenera.com
Wanna quote me ?
http://www.zenera.com/aibrahim/quoteme.html
-------
Send me Spam, a.k.a unsolicited commercial email, and I will bill you
at least $500.
It's legal, unlike SPAM
-------
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3bf7fbaa....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
La...@la.com
>I doubt you even saw the trailer on the big screen,
>but if you did, what differences did you notice ???
24P just looks like video. It doesn't handle highlights well at all,
the blacks are crushed and uniformly black and it has, at least to me,
a generally less pleasant look than film.
Now it IS the closest to film of all the video systems extant, :) but
saying "it looks just like film" just ain't so.
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>Well,
>
>I do disagree with you on about a billion things, I find your position
>dogmatic in some ways...but I know you have reasons behind even your
>most dogmatic views. I can respect that, even if I do not understand
>or agree.
I would question the word "dogmatic", but why would I hold that
against you when you're one of the very, very few people who post to
filmmaking groups who can actually discuss something without
collapsing into insult throwing.
With the way the screenwriting group has devolved into a no man's land
peopled by jerks, kiss ass wanna-bes and trolls, I VERY much
appreciate your posts as they always have something interesting to
say. :)
Matt Sandstrom
> one of the very, very few people who post to
> filmmaking groups who can actually discuss something without
> collapsing into insult throwing.
am i supposed to take that as an insult after our recent dogma
dicussion? ;-)
/matt
Alexander Ibrahim
post there, but man they went downhill before I really got going, I
unsubscribed and I don't think I'll go back.
I think writing is even more personal than cinematography and there
are even more ways of getting it done...I know a guy who ONLY writes
stories backwards fer crying out loud. It is a weird way of working
but, it makes him happy...and he earns more than I do from writing.
<shrug>
I find that "screenwriters", especially the unproduced ones, generally
have superficial criticisms are unthinking, undedicated and lack
talent. (I hope I didn't just describe myself.<shudder>) For the most
part it is a pointless discussion.
One guy I sometimes write to is J. Michael Straczynski, who wrote for
Murder, She Wrote and is still writing Babylon 5 stories, I get a lot
of great advice from him all the time. (Well...not ALL the time...I
write him about 4-6 times a year and he generally writes back, very
cool for such a known personality...but it must cost him a TON of
time.) I find it simply more fruitful to correspond with him...and
quite often more encouraging. He is less judgemental about process and
product, his advice (often just common sense) is so appropiate to my
questions that I often smack myself on the head and wonder why I
didn't just think of that myself.
I really would like to meet somebody who could afford the time to
really mentor me, as I really believe that it is the most appropiate
form of help for any sort of writing above the basic undergraduate
collegiate levels.
Well, that is enough off-topic stuff I guess...you can drop me an
email if you care to talk about screenwriting more. I may set up a
message board or something if enough serious people are interested in
it. I wouldn't care about talent...just that correspondents were
"serious" about the matter.
Hmmm...maybe I should just set up a moderated screenwriting
newsgroup...must go read about newsgroups.
--
-----
Alexander Ibrahim
aibr...@zenera.com
http://www.zenera.com
-----
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3bf9f30f....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
Alexander Ibrahim
The sad truth is that I can make film look just like you described by
not knowing what I am doing...I think we can agree on that much.
Frankly I do it all the time when I am rushing to shoot something with
a 35mm still cam.
What you are describing is the biggest first mistake a film DP will
make when using any video format...especially those DP's from the
"just barely not overexposed" school of thought on exposure. It also
disregards the use of the other big tool to fit the camera's few
limitations- lighting.
You can relight a set to make it look very good on video, and very
film like in 24P HD. And, no we are not oblivious to the film vs.
video difference LaGuy, you don't have superpowers. (I do and I can
prove it....see I'm flying!)
Where was I...oh yeah, These trailers are looking VERY good, far
better than I expected.
Now what did I expect ? I expected that HD would provide all the tools
necessary to tell a Star Wars story without taking away from it,
especially after digital processing of virtually every scene in the
film. I expected a medium that was suitable for storytelling and
allowed artistry, but not one that itself could be art. See, I can
just take a picture of a pretty girl or a great landscape in 35mm and
it looks great, because the subject is great. I didn't expect that HD
would be good enough to simply allow a scene to tell its own story.
It is.
As good as 35 ? Hard to say, the sample was too small. 35mm may be
better, but it is a small difference based on the tiny bit I have seen
from Episode 2.
The Soviets had a saying, "Never let the best be the enemy of good
enough."
HD is good enough, though not yet the best. Its other advantages can
and do make the difference.
--
Alexander Ibrahim
http://www.zenera.com
Wanna quote me ?
http://www.zenera.com/aibrahim/quoteme.html
-------
Send me Spam, a.k.a unsolicited commercial email, and I will bill you
at least $500.
It's legal, unlike SPAM
-------
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3bf9f293....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
Alexander Ibrahim
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3bf7fbf2....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 05:07:22 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim"
> <ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>
> >PR Schmee R...
> >
> >Sony is a publicly traded company. Go look up their SEC
filings...they
> >will tell you very accurately every year what is going on at any
> >publicly traded company.
>
> I'm guessing from that remark that you may never have seen a public
> report. You should see one. It will enlighten you as to what is
and
> isn't included.
Snicker...my partner is a securities attorney, and often asks me to
help research or proofread. Once I was even hired as a technical
consultant for a telecomm companies SEC filings. So, I've had a hand
in actually *writing* 10-K's and other forms. Mostly that is for banks
and tech companies.
>
> >Lying carries jail/prison terms for all involved and heavy fines.
>
> Where would they be "lying"? Whatever payoffs are accounted for in
> the "cost of product".
Yeah, they could stick it in there, but that would definitely go
against accounting practice and the SEC would definitely frown on it.
It is not lying, but it could certainly halt the paperwork on even a
large concern cause that is just not where that stuff belongs, it
should be disclosed in marketing expenditures. In fact it is more
likely to stop a large concern than a smaller one.
>
> >No
> >marketing allowed.
>
> Now I don't follow you. Are you saying Sony doesn't do marketing?
Not in their SEC statements. I am not talking about a prospectus or
proxy documents though those must be filed as well, but SEC statements
like the 10 series and S series.
>
> >If the SEC has questions they can, will and have
> >halted stocks of even the largest companies.
>
> Why would they? It's perfectly legal for them to pay people who
help
> them with promotion. Just like they right now give away video
cameras
> to people they think will give them exposure.
Perhaps, but it is not legal to keep their business practices from
investors when so much money is involved. They would have to
characterize what you are talking about as a non-standard marketing
activity. (You are talking about an arrangement where Lucas is getting
cash for every HDCAM sold out there right ?) What you are talking
about would have to be disclosed in detail because it would have too
much effect on the bottom line on my money, and of course that of
other stockholders. (Yeah I own Sony, but hey I own more of each Kodak
and Fuji...I bought all of them after 9/11)
As to Lucas...well if he was just in this for the kickback Kodak and
Fuji have as much to gain from Lucas saying that digital is not ready
and using film as Sony does from him leaping in to HD production....I
am sure they would pay as much, possibly more than Sony...after all
for Kodak and Fuji film is life, whereas for Sony this is just an
extra nicety.
<snip>
>
> >The HDCAM products are driven by the US conversion over the next
few
> >years to high definition broadcast. Not Lucas or film makers but
news
> >agencies.
> >
> >How many HDCAM decks and cameras could be sold if everyone in
> >Hollywood starting using HDCAM exclusively tomorrow ?
>
> Hollywood can still be used to make the camera "sexy". After all
that
> how Dolby bacame "sexy" for tape decks, and they made a lot of money
> from it.
>
When a small TV station is dropping $10 million US on equipment they
don't give a damn about sexy, I assure you. A lot of the Hollywood
stuff doesn't matter at all to Station Managers and producers, with
good reason. What they need is very fast and very reliable linear
editing, and reliable space saving archival.
Also, the CineAlta, as used by Lucas is bound by tethers to all sorts
of crap on set, piles of cabling. That is a useless hunk of crap from
a news photographers point of view. Hence Sony's Betacam SX, which is
a piece of shit, sorry for language but really it is BAAAD, certainly
the worst digital video format, but it is satellite friendly, and
certainly easy to tromp around with in all sorts of places.
<snip>
> >Back to cinema...new technology breeds new techniques and new work
> >shows it. In the "early" HD film days on Episode 1, they lit a
film
> >set and pointed an HD camera at it...now they are lighting HD sets
for
> >their HD cameras...it is starting to be a subtle but profound
> >change...lots of little things change, some better a few worse most
> >just different...but the end product is quite different.
>
> The Crappy Menace was different all right. A twenty year step
> backwards as it failed to match the quality of TESB on every level
(I
> know it's a very high goal but still).
Well, the down side is that the CineAlta is, IMO, the first video
camera really suited to movie making. There have been no marked
improvements since it rolled off the line for Episode 1. People have
learned to deal with it more intelligently, but it is the same film
stock if you will.
I think there will be a newer unit available that oversamples the
image significantly for Episode 3. You all probably know that a lot of
standard definition video cameras have resolutions of 730+ lines when
NTSC video limits you to 535 lines. Now Digital HD Video can display
1920x1080 pixels and AFAIK the CineAlta makes no effort to sample more
pixels than that exact amount. Future cameras will oversample.
Even though they record the same format they will be as much better
than the FDW-900 as modern BetacamSP is better than early BetacamSP
units, that is to say much better.
Well about TPM, what I don't like about it is that it looks unreal for
lack of a better word. I think it was a carefully chosen and frankly
well implemented style, but I dunno. Everything was perfectly clean,
lit by wonderfully perfect lighting that was entirely unmotivated and
all the collors were pushed a bit towards teh MTV/surreal side.
TESB and frankly the whole original trilogy was the opposite. They had
fairly gritty, real scenes. They used basic well motivated lighting. A
totally different, and in my mind better, style.
Now given the style choice for TPM and ATOTC...video is a good medium
and HD can deliver acceptable quality on all but the biggest screens.
I will be VERY impressed if it simply stands up to the huge venues
where it will no doubt be shown without turning into a pixellated
nightmare.
Clearly Lucas thinks it can stand up and so do the other people
working on ATOTC. From what I have seen it is better than I thought,
and knowing my pro technology pro future tech filmaking stance that is
saying a LOT.
>
> >It has to be seen to be commented on.
>
> 24P is 24P.
>
> >So, back to you panning HD...who do you work for LaGuy ? Kodak or
Fuji
> >? Both ?
>
> I wish. I could get free stock :))))
Yeah, well I wish I worked for Sony...for similiar reasons. I want
that damn camera and an HD edit station!
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>LaGuy...if you didn't see the trailer please refrain from commenting.
Well, I've seen enough 24P to know for a fact the thing just doesn't
"look like film"! :)
>The sad truth is that I can make film look just like you described by
>not knowing what I am doing...
It's true that a bad DP can make really ugly images no matter what the
medium. However, film is a lot more forgiving, which allows people
who barely know what they're doing like the BIll Roes of the world to
slide by.
>I think we can agree on that much.
>Frankly I do it all the time when I am rushing to shoot something with
>a 35mm still cam.
Sorry to hear that. :(
>What you are describing is the biggest first mistake a film DP will
>make when using any video format...especially those DP's from the
>"just barely not overexposed" school of thought on exposure. It also
>disregards the use of the other big tool to fit the camera's few
>limitations- lighting.
>
>You can relight a set to make it look very good on video, and very
>film like in 24P HD. And, no we are not oblivious to the film vs.
>video difference LaGuy, you don't have superpowers. (I do and I can
>prove it....see I'm flying!)
LOL :)))
>Where was I...oh yeah, These trailers are looking VERY good, far
>better than I expected.
>
>Now what did I expect ? I expected that HD would provide all the tools
>necessary to tell a Star Wars story without taking away from it,
>especially after digital processing of virtually every scene in the
>film.
Well given how crappy The Crappy Menace looked like, you've got a
point. However, my standard is Peter Suchitszky's beutiful TESB, not
The Crappy Menace. :)
>I expected a medium that was suitable for storytelling and
>allowed artistry, but not one that itself could be art. See, I can
>just take a picture of a pretty girl or a great landscape in 35mm and
>it looks great, because the subject is great. I didn't expect that HD
>would be good enough to simply allow a scene to tell its own story.
>
>It is.
>
>As good as 35 ? Hard to say, the sample was too small. 35mm may be
>better, but it is a small difference based on the tiny bit I have seen
>from Episode 2.
A big enough difference that it really makes no sense to me to use it
if you have the choice, a well-funded professional productions do.
>The Soviets had a saying, "Never let the best be the enemy of good
>enough."
>
>HD is good enough,
That's where we differ. It's nowhere near "good enough" for my
standards.
La...@la.com
wrote:
Of course not. I was for the most part referring to the various
bleepholes in the screenwriting group (not that we don't have a couple
here).
Your posts were consistently interesting and written in a respectful
fashion :)
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>I noticed about the screewriting groups, I was starting to read and
>post there, but man they went downhill before I really got going, I
>unsubscribed and I don't think I'll go back.
I hate to give space to trolls, but what's left of that group is so
sad I'm not sure it's worth the bother. :(((
>I think writing is even more personal than cinematography and there
>are even more ways of getting it done...
That's very true. Pretty much every writer I know does something
differently from everybody else..
>I know a guy who ONLY writes
>stories backwards fer crying out loud. It is a weird way of working
>but, it makes him happy...and he earns more than I do from writing.
><shrug>
>
>I find that "screenwriters", especially the unproduced ones, generally
>have superficial criticisms are unthinking, undedicated and lack
>talent. (I hope I didn't just describe myself.<shudder>)
LOL :))) I'm sure you haven't. :)
>For the most part it is a pointless discussion.
>
>One guy I sometimes write to is J. Michael Straczynski, who wrote for
>Murder, She Wrote and is still writing Babylon 5 stories, I get a lot
>of great advice from him all the time. (Well...not ALL the time...I
>write him about 4-6 times a year and he generally writes back, very
>cool for such a known personality...but it must cost him a TON of
>time.) I find it simply more fruitful to correspond with him...and
>quite often more encouraging. He is less judgemental about process and
>product, his advice (often just common sense) is so appropiate to my
>questions that I often smack myself on the head and wonder why I
>didn't just think of that myself.
That's VERY nice of him. In groups he comes out as do most well-known
people who post under their own names as someone who posts, not to
share his thoughts, but rather to receive the adulation of the masses
and seems completely incapable of handling anything other than
complete worship.
I'm glad to hear he's also a giving person as I do respect his work
generally. :))
>I really would like to meet somebody who could afford the time to
>really mentor me, as I really believe that it is the most appropiate
>form of help for any sort of writing above the basic undergraduate
>collegiate levels.
Finding another writer who can actually help you write your own
screenplays rather than tell you how he'd have written his own
differnt story is very difficult and rare.
>Well, that is enough off-topic stuff I guess...you can drop me an
>email if you care to talk about screenwriting more. I may set up a
>message board or something if enough serious people are interested in
>it. I wouldn't care about talent...just that correspondents were
>"serious" about the matter.
>
>Hmmm...maybe I should just set up a moderated screenwriting
>newsgroup...must go read about newsgroups.
It's hard to have a moderated group which doesn't tun into "I'm
zapping everything I don't like". Maybe you'd be up to the task. :)
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>
><La...@LA.com> wrote in message
>news:3bf7fbf2....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 05:07:22 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim"
>> <ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>>
>> >PR Schmee R...
>> >
>> >Sony is a publicly traded company. Go look up their SEC
>filings...they
>> >will tell you very accurately every year what is going on at any
>> >publicly traded company.
>>
>> I'm guessing from that remark that you may never have seen a public
>> report. You should see one. It will enlighten you as to what is
>and
>> isn't included.
>
>Snicker...my partner is a securities attorney, and often asks me to
>help research or proofread. Once I was even hired as a technical
>consultant for a telecomm companies SEC filings. So, I've had a hand
>in actually *writing* 10-K's and other forms. Mostly that is for banks
>and tech companies.
I am now officially baffled by your previous remarks on the subject.
Clearly I must have misunderstood them. :)
>
>>
>> >Lying carries jail/prison terms for all involved and heavy fines.
>>
>> Where would they be "lying"? Whatever payoffs are accounted for in
>> the "cost of product".
>
>Yeah, they could stick it in there, but that would definitely go
>against accounting practice and the SEC would definitely frown on it.
I don't believe the SEC has a special category for "payola"... ;)
>It is not lying, but it could certainly halt the paperwork on even a
>large concern cause that is just not where that stuff belongs, it
>should be disclosed in marketing expenditures.
Good point. That's probably where they stick it.
>In fact it is more
>likely to stop a large concern than a smaller one.
>
>>
>> >No
>> >marketing allowed.
>>
>> Now I don't follow you. Are you saying Sony doesn't do marketing?
>
>Not in their SEC statements. I am not talking about a prospectus or
>proxy documents though those must be filed as well, but SEC statements
>like the 10 series and S series.
I have to say I lost the thread of what we were discussing. Sorry. :)
>
>> Why would they? It's perfectly legal for them to pay people who
>help
>> them with promotion. Just like they right now give away video
>cameras
>> to people they think will give them exposure.
>
>Perhaps, but it is not legal to keep their business practices from
>investors when so much money is involved.
Actually most companies do. It's called "trade secrets".
Shareholders in Coca-Cola don't get a copy of the secret receipe.
>They would have to
>characterize what you are talking about as a non-standard marketing
>activity. (You are talking about an arrangement where Lucas is getting
>cash for every HDCAM sold out there right ?) What you are talking
>about would have to be disclosed in detail because it would have too
>much effect on the bottom line on my money, and of course that of
>other stockholders.
Like you suggested, it'd get mixed into the "marketing" category
probably.
>(Yeah I own Sony, but hey I own more of each Kodak
>and Fuji...I bought all of them after 9/11)
That was a good time to buy :))) Good for you. :)
>As to Lucas...well if he was just in this for the kickback Kodak and
>Fuji have as much to gain from Lucas saying that digital is not ready
>and using film as Sony does from him leaping in to HD production....
Maybe they were not bright enough to payola him as much as they should
have... Or maybe Lucas has a grudge against them. The man has a huge
memory. He seems to still be steamed against L.A. unions over
something that probably happened 30 years ago.
>I am sure they would pay as much, possibly more than Sony...after all
>for Kodak and Fuji film is life, whereas for Sony this is just an
>extra nicety.
>
>When a small TV station is dropping $10 million US on equipment they
>don't give a damn about sexy, I assure you.
On that we disagree. Most people do care about that. That's why they
don't buy the best, most appropriate product all the time.
>A lot of the Hollywood
>stuff doesn't matter at all to Station Managers and producers, with
>good reason. What they need is very fast and very reliable linear
>editing, and reliable space saving archival.
>
>Also, the CineAlta, as used by Lucas is bound by tethers to all sorts
>of crap on set, piles of cabling. That is a useless hunk of crap from
>a news photographers point of view. Hence Sony's Betacam SX, which is
>a piece of shit, sorry for language but really it is BAAAD, certainly
>the worst digital video format, but it is satellite friendly, and
>certainly easy to tromp around with in all sorts of places.
Interesting example. :)))
I have to say I don't know much about news practices when it comes to
buying gear, but in movies, they're selling shooting on video to their
stars by saying "we're using the same thinug Geaorge Lucas is" and
we're getting the ugliness of Witchblade as a result.
><snip>
>> The Crappy Menace was different all right. A twenty year step
>> backwards as it failed to match the quality of TESB on every level
>(I
>> know it's a very high goal but still).
>
>Well, the down side is that the CineAlta is, IMO, the first video
>camera really suited to movie making. There have been no marked
>improvements since it rolled off the line for Episode 1. People have
>learned to deal with it more intelligently, but it is the same film
>stock if you will.
LOL :)
>I think there will be a newer unit available that oversamples the
>image significantly for Episode 3. You all probably know that a lot of
>standard definition video cameras have resolutions of 730+ lines when
>NTSC video limits you to 535 lines. Now Digital HD Video can display
>1920x1080 pixels and AFAIK the CineAlta makes no effort to sample more
>pixels than that exact amount. Future cameras will oversample.
>
>Even though they record the same format they will be as much better
>than the FDW-900 as modern BetacamSP is better than early BetacamSP
>units, that is to say much better.
>
>Well about TPM, what I don't like about it is that it looks unreal for
>lack of a better word.
Tha'ts an interesting word for it. :)
>I think it was a carefully chosen and frankly
>well implemented style, but I dunno.
On that I disagree.
>Everything was perfectly clean,
>lit by wonderfully perfect lighting that was entirely unmotivated and
>all the collors were pushed a bit towards teh MTV/surreal side.
>
>TESB and frankly the whole original trilogy was the opposite. They had
>fairly gritty, real scenes. They used basic well motivated lighting. A
>totally different, and in my mind better, style.
We agree 100% :))
>Now given the style choice for TPM and ATOTC...video is a good medium
Well, if you mean Lucas decided it should look bad so what he shot on
doesn't matter... ;)
>and HD can deliver acceptable quality on all but the biggest screens.
>I will be VERY impressed if it simply stands up to the huge venues
>where it will no doubt be shown without turning into a pixellated
>nightmare.
>
>Clearly Lucas thinks it can stand up and so do the other people
>working on ATOTC. From what I have seen it is better than I thought,
>and knowing my pro technology pro future tech filmaking stance that is
>saying a LOT.
>>
>> >It has to be seen to be commented on.
>>
>> 24P is 24P.
>>
>> >So, back to you panning HD...who do you work for LaGuy ? Kodak or
>Fuji
>> >? Both ?
>>
>> I wish. I could get free stock :))))
>
>Yeah, well I wish I worked for Sony...for similiar reasons. I want
>that damn camera and an HD edit station!
LOL :)))
Alexander Ibrahim
current HD video have to change to be just "good enough" not the
best...in your opinion LAGuy ?
I'd love it if David Mullen might talk a bit about what made him think
HD was good enough.
Now me, I have a different take on the matter. I have seen audiences
oooh and ahhhh over projected DV footage. Frankly I nearly barfed,
because I thought that aside from DV that the camerawork was crap
etc....that is another story. The point is they LIKED it.
So for me DV is good enough because it lets me tell a story as opposed
to not tell a story, and audiences can find it acceptable.
HD is really good enough because it can create an image that is on its
own merits stunning. It looks good, and lets me tell a story how I
like without detracting from it.
as good as 35 ? Nah. It can be really hard to tell the difference
though in small venues or on TV. I have yet to see HD at the Uptown in
DC which is hands down the nicest, and biggest, theatre near me. When
I do, that is when I'll render my final verdict on the matter. See, a
large venue like that is where I think HD will break down.
Of course, no one else does or should care what I think.
--
Alexander Ibrahim
http://www.zenera.com
Wanna quote me ?
http://www.zenera.com/aibrahim/quoteme.html
-------
Send me Spam, a.k.a unsolicited commercial email, and I will bill you
at least $500.
It's legal, unlike SPAM
-------
<La...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3bfbda17...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
La...@la.com
<ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>Well to be more productive, what exactly and to what degree does
>current HD video have to change to be just "good enough" not the
>best...in your opinion LAGuy ?
It's all in the eye, so it has to change to the point where I think it
looks great, or at least, where I don't think it looks crappy (I know,
I'm difficult :) )
>
>I'd love it if David Mullen might talk a bit about what made him think
>HD was good enough.
>
>Now me, I have a different take on the matter. I have seen audiences
>oooh and ahhhh over projected DV footage. Frankly I nearly barfed,
>because I thought that aside from DV that the camerawork was crap
>etc....that is another story. The point is they LIKED it.
The real question is what audience, how was it presented to them,
etc...
>So for me DV is good enough because it lets me tell a story as opposed
>to not tell a story, and audiences can find it acceptable.
The real problem, without getting into the aesthetics of it, is that
DV most of the time doesn't find an audience for want of distribution.
>HD is really good enough because it can create an image that is on its
>own merits stunning.
What did you see that you found "stunning". What HD I saw looked
worse than 24P. Or maybe you meant 24P.
>It looks good, and lets me tell a story how I
>like without detracting from it.
>
>as good as 35 ? Nah. It can be really hard to tell the difference
>though in small venues or on TV.
I usually can tell. When I ask myself "what did they do to that
picture, it looks terrible (beyond the lighting)" I realize that it
was shot on video.
Matt Sandstrom
> What did you see that you found "stunning". What HD I saw looked
> worse than 24P. Or maybe you meant 24P.
24p *is* hd. 50/60i might be the first subset of the standard used, but
they are still all hd.
/matt
La...@la.com
wrote:
>La...@LA.com wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. :)))
Marc Wielage
(in message <3bf9f293....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>):
> 24P just looks like video. It doesn't handle highlights well at all,
> the blacks are crushed and uniformly black and it has, at least to me,
> a generally less pleasant look than film.
>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
Have you ever actually shot any 24P video before?
--MFW
Bundleup
>> the blacks are crushed and uniformly black and it has, at least to me,
>> a generally less pleasant look than film.
>>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<
>
>
>Have you ever actually shot any 24P video before?
>
>
Of course he hasn't, he hasn't seen a 24P movie projected at a theatre either,
but he won't let that stop him.
alt.rec.movies.production
Eric J. Smith
reproduction of the flesh-tones were unacceptable to me in all the scenes
except those that were shot outside in the bright daylight (or looked to be
shot in that environment).
All the other colors seemed somewhat dulled unless it was a CGI element.
Maybe this contrast was part of the production design, but it is a bit much
for me.
The only other thing I noticed that really bothered me were the faces in
decreased exposure scenes. (Note: I'm not claiming that they were
underexposed). In these scenes the faces seemed to have a lot of noise in
them, and not film grain noise, but what looked to be digital noise (almost
like compression). It really bothered me.
Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be another video-game film with
lots of space-age motorcycle races in it.
Hoping for the best,
Eric J. Smith
Director/Director of Photography
e...@PuritanFilms.com
LA...@la.com
Unfortunately not exactly a surprise :(((
It's very sad that George Lucas is at a point where he can do whatever
he wants and choose to shoot bad supporting material for videogames.
:((((
John Fromes
It's amazing that it's obvious to someone who has never even seen it...
John Fromes
That implies that you have been wrong on occasion, otherwise you would
have said you can "always" tell.
The fact of the matter is that you have NOT seen THIS trailer, which
is what is revolutionairy.
Most 24P stuff looks like video, hell I'll even agree that EVERYTHING
up to this point does not even come close to comparing, but the STAR
WARAS trailers do better than compare, they are EQUAL to 35mm film.
Until you see the actual trailers and can say with some kind of
expertise on the STAR WARS trailers and not just HD in general, please
shut the hell up. I'm sur eyou have a good eye, but it's not good
enough to judge a trailer you have never seen.
You are an annoying moron who just likes to type. (as am I)
- JF
www.sonnyboo.com
christopher from houston
wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:04:18 GMT, Fett <floy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Go see the 3rd trailer on the big screen projected on film..
>> >There is no difference between what I saw, and something that
>> >originated on film. It looked amazing.
>> >24p rules.
you, sir, are on crack rock. I kept cringing hoping to not notice the
difference but it was undeniable. It's not horrid, but it's
definitely there.
-=- christopher
KrG
> difference but it was undeniable. It's not horrid, but it's
> definitely there.
Guys...as a cinematographer, I can only say this...get a life!
24P is here to stay. That's a fact.
It is just another format to shoot on.
So get off the "which is better" crap and realize that there are different
formats for different shooting situations.
"Leaving Las Vegas" come to mind?
16mm used to be considered a totally amateur format, and now it is
mainstream.
24P is just another format to shoot on...that's all.
Big Smiley Face!
Ken Glassing
LA...@la.com
wrote:
>> you, sir, are on crack rock. I kept cringing hoping to not notice the
>> difference but it was undeniable. It's not horrid, but it's
>> definitely there.
>
>
>Guys...as a cinematographer, I can only say this...get a life!
>24P is here to stay. That's a fact.
>It is just another format to shoot on.
>So get off the "which is better" crap and realize that there are different
>formats for different shooting situations.
>"Leaving Las Vegas" come to mind?
>16mm used to be considered a totally amateur format, and now it is
>mainstream.
It really isn't. It's routinely rejected by German buyers for
instance even when shot by seasoned cinematographers.
Bundleup
>>24P is here to stay. That's a fact.
>>It is just another format to shoot on.
>>So get off the "which is better" crap and realize that there are different
>>formats for different shooting situations.
>>"Leaving Las Vegas" come to mind?
>>16mm used to be considered a totally amateur format, and now it is
>>mainstream.
>
>It really isn't. It's routinely rejected by German buyers for
>instance even when shot by seasoned cinematographers.
>
Misleading statement. German buyers reject EVERYTHING.
Ask any distrubutor.
alt.rec.movies.production
John Fromes
> >It is just another format to shoot on.
> >So get off the "which is better" crap and realize that there are different
> >formats for different shooting situations.
> >"Leaving Las Vegas" come to mind?
> >16mm used to be considered a totally amateur format, and now it is
> >mainstream.
>
> It really isn't. It's routinely rejected by German buyers for
> instance even when shot by seasoned cinematographers.
As we all know, we all take our cues from the German
cinematographers... No D.P worth his salt does ANYTHING without
consulting the Germans...
LAGUY - the definition of moron.
LA...@la.com
LOL. They do have strict and weird "standards" indeed. However
they've never rejected something partly based on the fact that it was
35mm (at least to my knowledge).
Fett
Yeah it looked sharper than most films, and didn't look grainy,
although I'm sure they added some grain. The shots they showed were
alot brighter than most movies. I'd like to see the Mystery trailer on
the big screen. That had alot more shadows.