Technical or Aesthetic Opinions

jonno

Just wondering which of the following ye prefer when you go see a movie.

We all know the DV cameras are starting to have a bigger role in making movies of late giving an almost perfect picture eg. Star Wars etc.

It's cheaper, easier to use with special effects and easier to edit.



But what about the old feel good feeling of watching an old movie shot on celluloid with it's unique crispy look eg. Casablanca, The Third Man or any classic.

It's dearer to shoot on film.

Dustaz

Well, they dont actually use DV cameras for Star Wars

(Its a format called Hi-Def - and its just a little pricier than your sony mini-dv handycam. Bloody nice pictures tho).


Obviously, your always going to get a certain result from 35mm film and i voted for that in the poll. However, in a discussion about this very subject a collegue made a very good point.

The reason we waffle on about the tone, depth and quality of a film shot is because were conditioned to see that 'look' as the best 'look', There could be a much better shot on video, but because the inferior film shot features film grain its somehow better. Im inclined to agree with him somehow.

Ive seen Hidef shots that are lit so well, i would doubt anyone would notice that it wasnt film unless they were told. In fact, id say the vast majority of people werent aware that Star Wars was shot on video.

Dustaz

Originally posted by jonno

It's cheaper, easier to use with special effects and easier to edit.
B]

Its not really any easier to do special effects, since all feature films are transferred to data and posted then scanned back out to film again now.

It doesnt really have any bearing on the editing process either. The same tools are used either road you go down.

jonno

Sorry I didn't really put it the way I meant it. The reason I said it was cheaper was because most modern hard drives are high speed and so the digital images can be edited using a non-linear editing system. Once you have the appropriate software that is.

Also most newbie's or independent film makers will usually go for DV because it's practical with all the new systems that will manipulate images for you.

What I was saying about visual effects being made easier is that they are usually computer generated images (CGI).

At a very basic level the film is being edited on a PC.

PS: My mistake about Star Wars. Sure DV is only new and Star Wars isn't new.

mike65

I love the creative filmic look with lots of "atmosphere", where appropriate, but I'm sure there's no reason why hi-defintion video
cant achive the same look with a bit of software tweaking.

What I cant abide is that flat video tape look, that used to plague TV.

Mike.

spooky donkey

ah if its newer it has to be better i say!

Dustaz

Ok, i see what you mean now Jonno. Your talking about DV being used to make Low budget shorts and TV ?

Id much prefer the look of film, but DV can still be made to look pretty damn good with clever lighting. It also makes a lot of sense from a Cost perspective. Check out a short film called Zulu 9 if you ever get the chance (it opened for Apocalypse Now Redux during its run). It was entirely shot on DV using 9 cameras. The DV -> 35mm transfer gave it quite a nice look as well.


Couple of things

Originally posted by jonno
Sorry I didn't really put it the way I meant it. The reason I said it was cheaper was because most modern hard drives are high speed and so the digital images can be edited using a non-linear editing system. Once you have the appropriate software that is.

Film is edited in the exact same way that DV is edited, its just that the Film is telecined to tape and then loaded into a non linear edit suite. Theres still one or two directors/editors who edit on actual film, but they are very few and far between at this stage.

Also most newbie's or independent film makers will usually go for DV because it's practical with all the new systems that will manipulate images for you.

What I was saying about visual effects being made easier is that they are usually computer generated images (CGI).

At a very basic level the film is being edited on a PC.

The independants go for it usually on a purely cost based reason. A DV stick costs are a fraction of film stock costs and theres no processing or transfer costs involved. Once the SV rushes are digitised into an edit pc/ Graphics/composting system, the process converges with the film process.

PS: My mistake about Star Wars. Sure DV is only new and Star Wars isn't new.

DV was out before HiDef