Good enough...

[joshua csehak]

You can download the 720p version from The Pirate Bay, burn it to DVD and watch it on your TV using a BluRay player which plays mkv files.

I just watched the first few minutes in 720p. OMFG enough with the shallow DoF already! You can tell someone got a new toy...

 

[Subhadip Sen]

:banghead: what's the correlation between a camera and intelligent story tellers?

True, there isn't really one. But indirectly, it is definitely opening up cinema. In the past, the filmmakers were at the burden of the producers. The 35mm process is expensive. Now, with the Scarlet, a much broader range of filmmakers have the opportunity to make a film. The real visionaries - the ones who have a truly radical film in their head - are likely to be overlooked by the financiers, industry and critics alike. Especially in the day when any script that doesn't fit the formula and 120 pages are overlooked without a second glance. It is like Coppola once said:

“To me the great hope is that now these little 8mm video records and stuff that are coming out, just some, people that normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them and, you know, suddenly one day some fat girl in Ohio is going to be the next Mozart and make a beautiful film with her father's camera and for once the so called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever, and it will really become an art form - that's my opinion”

Yes, that is what RED is doing.

 

[Robert Frank]

I seem to remember the DP just lamenting how much he hated DV though in the AC article.

Looked 'ok' but sounded like he got 'ok' out of many a shed tear and drop of blood to make it work 'ok'. Doesn't sound like my idea of fun.

I've been there. Directed/Dp'd a feature shot on XL-2's. Indy feature which meant I wore many hats at the same time. A lot of stories to tell about this clusterf**k :violin:

Reviewing dailies was a constant struggle to not give up hope for the image quality.

 

[Robert Frank]

However I wish people would stop using it as an example anyway as the post pipeline ended up costing in the region on 1.2 million dollars before it was deemed suitable for release quality.

:iagree:

The way I see all of the references to films using low quality cameras intentionally for the "look" is this: you can always mangle, degrade, low-fi, whatever you want to a high quality image, but you can't improve crap quality footage too much. You know, "lipstick on a pig" kind of thing.

 

[joshua csehak]

Considering it was DV it still looked dodgy. In absolute terms, it looked awful.
DV was chosen for speed in getting the deserted London shots. In the end, I'm sure it would have looked better shooting high resolution stills and comping the actors in. Both me and my wife were shocked at how bad it looked. If we'd paid to see it rather than getting in free for a local preview, we'd have asked for our money back.

Graeme

Totally disagree. I saw it in the theaters and loved it. The fact that it looked bad made the story that much more effective for me.

... It is like Coppola once said:

“To me the great hope is that now these little 8mm video records and stuff that are coming out, just some, people that normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them and, you know, suddenly one day some fat girl in Ohio is going to be the next Mozart and make a beautiful film with her father's camera and for once the so called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever, and it will really become an art form - that's my opinion”

Yes, that is what RED is doing.

Yeah, that's what they said about video. And then HD video. And DSLRs and Flip cams. Too bad most of the expense of most movies is props, crew, lighting, actors, food, costumes, grip, etc. All that RED is doing is making it so that fat girl in Ohio can make her movie look as good as Hollywood. Which is of course no mean feat. But I think Coppola was drunk when he said that.

 

[Chris Pickle]

Totally disagree. I saw it in the theaters and loved it. The fact that it looked bad made the story that much more effective for me.




Yeah, that's what they said about video. And then HD video. And DSLRs and Flip cams. Too bad most of the expense of most movies is props, crew, lighting, actors, food, costumes, grip, etc. All that RED is doing is making it so that fat girl in Ohio can make her movie look as good as Hollywood. Which is of course no mean feat. But I think Coppola was drunk when he said that.

If I owned my own vineyard, I'd always be drunk too!

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Totally disagree. I saw it in the theaters and loved it. The fact that it looked bad made the story that much more effective for me.

Yeah, that's what they said about video. And then HD video. And DSLRs and Flip cams. Too bad most of the expense of most movies is props, crew, lighting, actors, food, costumes, grip, etc. All that RED is doing is making it so that fat girl in Ohio can make her movie look as good as Hollywood. Which is of course no mean feat. But I think Coppola was drunk when he said that.

In fact, it is right at the end of Hearts of Darkness, and he certainly looks like it is one of the sincerest things he's ever said. If I am not mistaken, it was on the sets of Apocalypse Now, and you sure can't afford to be drunk filming a film of that scope. Either that, or he is an incredible actor worthy of replacing Brando.

But, yes, while it is true that expenses lie elsewhere - a group of like minded people could now make a realist film with very little money and make it look as good as Hollywood.

Besides, narrative cinema isn't the only thing there in cinema. What we see in Hollywood is likely 0.00001% of the potential of cinema. Someone can go out there and expand upon what Dziga Vertov did. A single person and a camera could do something wonderful.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I actually saw 28 days later in the theatre as well and loved it. I liked the look of the final product because it felt different, not polished, and gave an extra edge to the whole feeling of isolation.

When 28 days later came out here where I am, everybody loved it. I've NEVER until this thread ever heard someone complain about the way it looked. EVER.

In fact, the most comments I have heard is how the story mode changes throughout the film a few times and that it changes your perception of how the story progresses. Some of it being very artsy (not my words).

I put this into the category of Blair Witch, Cloverfield and Paranormal Activity. In all four of these films, I definitely enjoyed what they had done (even with some annoyances) because the quality fit the style, but with that, I am VERY GLAD that these are an exception, used to their advantage, and not the rule. I agree that shooting at higher quality and degrading would be the safer option, I think Blair Witch shot at high quality would have ruined the experience for me. I think anyone having a higher quality video would have a hard time making it as bad as it needed to be!

If this thread teaches anything, 'Good Enough' is highly subjective and highly opinionated among people.

The BIGGEST complaint I hear from those I am around about movies is not about resolution, it's about the latest trend to have extremely close shots and ridiculous camera movement. (Bourne series).

 

[Jay Gannon]

Dont get me started on camera movement. Seriously, its not required to set up a frigging curved dolly shot in an interview. Or a crane move.

 

[chrislancaster]

Totally disagree. I saw it in the theaters and loved it. The fact that it looked bad made the story that much more effective for me.




Yeah, that's what they said about video. And then HD video. And DSLRs and Flip cams. Too bad most of the expense of most movies is props, crew, lighting, actors, food, costumes, grip, etc. All that RED is doing is making it so that fat girl in Ohio can make her movie look as good as Hollywood. Which is of course no mean feat. But I think Coppola was drunk when he said that.

Yes, all that was said and it's all true. They are numerous films that have been shot with unconventional cameras and they are amazing.

Ive seen lots of short videos with dslrs that have been very entertaining. Shane hurlbut and phillip bloom make them all the time and i dont want to leave out the hundreds of other guys making really incredible stories and "observation" films.


Same with RED I bet Steve Gibby is out shooting right now he will tell you RED has opened 1000 doors for him.

Dont dismiss what these unconventional cameras have accomplished because it has and will continue to change entertainment.


I dont think people can create what they think other people want because if that is what Hollywood is doing they must think we are violent, foul, demoralized pieces of filth.

The guys who stick to their vision always come out on top and the guys who dont are forgotten or they burn out and people will see them for the hacks they really are.


Its almost sad that a DP pours his heart and soul into something to the point of financial ruin and he loses relationships and everything suffers while he pays his dues for years.

All the technical skill and knowledge and years of working his ass off and one day he/she finds themselves successful sitting behind a camera filming Superbad.

:frown2:

so in short no, its not good enough till we kill the system.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Dont get me started on camera movement. Seriously, its not required to set up a frigging curved dolly shot in an interview. Or a crane move.

Yes, and thanks to the DSLRs, the same can be said for excessive use of shallow depth of field. It is terrible.

Yes, all that was said and it's all true. They are numerous films that have been shot with unconventional cameras and they are amazing.

Ive seen lots of short videos with dslrs that have been very entertaining. Shane hurlbut and phillip bloom make them all the time and i dont want to leave out the hundreds of other guys making really incredible stories and "observation" films.


Same with RED I bet Steve Gibby is out shooting right now he will tell you RED has opened 1000 doors for him.

Dont dismiss what these unconventional cameras have accomplished because it has and will continue to change entertainment.


I dont think people can create what they think other people want because if that is what Hollywood is doing they must think we are violent, foul, demoralized pieces of filth.

The guys who stick to their vision always come out on top and the guys who dont are forgotten or they burn out and people will see them for the hacks they really are.


Its almost sad that a DP pours his heart and soul into something to the point of financial ruin and he loses relationships and everything suffers while he pays his dues for years.

All the technical skill and knowledge and years of working his ass off and one day he/she finds themselves successful sitting behind a camera filming Superbad.

:frown2:

so in short no, its not good enough till we kill the system.

Great post, Chris. Sadly, in our world, the guys who stick to their vision have it the hard way. Of course, you have exceptional cases like George Lucas. But there are several filmmakers out there who have radical new ideas to take cinema to new and exciting places. These people will always continue to struggle, unless, yes, the system is reformed. For that, the people have to be reformed and more open-minded. With the era of Facebook, video games and whatnot, people just don't want to give much time to cinema. The truth is, a large majority only want the instant gratification and escapism. Even so called "critically acclaimed" dramas, like Up in the Air or Slumdog Millionaire, are steeped in escapist manipulation. Which is fine, absolutely, but there should be space for more artistic films. I don't really have a solution, but clearly, the system is not conducive for personal expression. Films are becoming more like business products, than art, unfortunately. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but there art and products should co-exist in this media.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

:banghead: what's the correlation between a camera and intelligent story tellers?

I think the point is that
1) there exist in the world, intelligent story tellers
2) there are also good cameras which can help provide for better production values
3) If those intelligent story tellers can afford, and choose to, create their films with better production values (helped by these "better cameras"), then they stand a better chance of being seen and being appreciated.

I don't think there is anything in there that says cameras and stories necessarily have anything to do with each other. Good cameras applied to bad stories don't help much. "Bad cameras" (or any other cause of poor production values), puts any film at a disadvantage.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Yes, and thanks to the DSLRs, the same can be said for excessive use of shallow depth of field. It is terrible.

But isn't shallow DOF what makes "Film Look???"

:troll:

Had a good look at jello today.
I likeeee jello... As long as it has shallow DOF

LOL/Irony mode off

 

[Subhadip Sen]

But isn't shallow DOF what makes "Film Look???"

:troll:

Had a good look at jello today.
I likeeee jello... As long as it has shallow DOF

LOL/Irony mode off

I think it is a ridiculous idea to show off shallow depth of field just to make it look like film. Think about several visionary filmmakers - Kubrick, Welles, Antonioni, Renoir, who were striving for deep focus. Deep focus is what is natural to our eyes. Of course, shallow depth of field is a great tool in certain situations. To express alienation, for example. But just use it everywhere? Or use it just so it looks cool? It is terrible.

P.S: I know your post is sarcastic, but I am just adding to it.

 

[chrislancaster]

Yes, and thanks to the DSLRs, the same can be said for excessive use of shallow depth of field. It is terrible.



Great post, Chris. Sadly, in our world, the guys who stick to their vision have it the hard way. Of course, you have exceptional cases like George Lucas. But there are several filmmakers out there who have radical new ideas to take cinema to new and exciting places. These people will always continue to struggle, unless, yes, the system is reformed. For that, the people have to be reformed and more open-minded. With the era of Facebook, video games and whatnot, people just don't want to give much time to cinema. The truth is, a large majority only want the instant gratification and escapism. Even so called "critically acclaimed" dramas, like Up in the Air or Slumdog Millionaire, are steeped in escapist manipulation. Which is fine, absolutely, but there should be space for more artistic films. I don't really have a solution, but clearly, the system is not conducive for personal expression. Films are becoming more like business products, than art, unfortunately. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but there art and products should co-exist in this media.

My children go to one of the "nicer" schools in Hawaii. That being said just yesterday one child attacked another with a machete. The attacked kid is in serious condition and I have to live with the fact it could have been my child.


I'm beyond sick of the dumbing down of society. The thing is you can dumb down a whole population very quickly but if we see our mistake as adults and the leaders of this world we can change them.

Media has more influence than parents because it is always with the child and as long as they continue to produce and promote trash while stuffing their pockets with cash I will do whatever i can to take that power from them.


Look at District 9 there was action, aliens and violence but there was also a message that everyone is the same and we all have the same instincts one of them is to protect our children.

 

[chrislancaster]

I think it is a ridiculous idea to show off shallow depth of field just to make it look like film. Think about several visionary filmmakers - Kubrick, Welles, Antonioni, Renoir, who were striving for deep focus. Deep focus is what is natural to our eyes. Of course, shallow depth of field is a great tool in certain situations. To express alienation, for example. But just use it everywhere? Or use it just so it looks cool? It is terrible.

P.S: I know your post is sarcastic, but I am just adding to it.

this is why Scarlet will rock ! :001_wub:

 

[Subhadip Sen]

My children go to one of the "nicer" schools in Hawaii. That being said just yesterday one child attacked another with a machete. The attacked kid is in serious condition and I have to live with the fact it could have been my child.


I'm beyond sick of the dumbing down of society. The thing is you can dumb down a whole population very quickly but if we see our mistake as adults and the leaders of this world we can change them.

Media has more influence than parents because it is always with the child and as long as they continue to produce and promote trash while stuffing their pockets with cash I will do whatever i can to take that power from them.

Look at District 9 there was action, aliens and violence but there was also a message that everyone is the same and we all have the same instincts one of them is to protect our children.

Indeed. I think most of us realize this general "dumbing down of society". But, unfortunately, there's very little we can do about it. There are solutions, but I am not sure they are realistically enforceable. Anyway, this is all way off topic! We have to accept that the film "industry" is after all, an industry. It's nothing personal, just business!

 

[chrislancaster]

Indeed. I think most of us realize this general "dumbing down of society". But, unfortunately, there's very little we can do about it. There are solutions, but I am not sure they are realistically enforceable. Anyway, this is all way off topic! We have to accept that the film "industry" is after all, an industry. It's nothing personal, just business!

not to me.

:devil:

lol .. a sobering conversation for sure but sometimes we need to be real about it all.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

this is why Scarlet will rock ! :001_wub:

It is interesting that the likes of David Lean, Jacques Tati and Stanley Kubrick strive for deep focus even on 70mm, while shallow depth of field is all over Vimeo and Youtube!

It is quickly becoming "DSLR look" much more than "film look".

 

[chrislancaster]

It is interesting that the likes of David Lean, Jacques Tati and Stanley Kubrick strive for deep focus even on 70mm, while shallow depth of field is all over Vimeo and Youtube!

It is quickly becoming "DSLR look" much more than "film look".

It's the new thing people are having fun with it but it will wear off and find it's place. Then it will be just another tool.

I'm sure it will be the same with 3-d etc....

Is it just me or are we totally lost without Jim?? ...lol