-
I just don't believe Lucas. By the way, I haven't heard or read his interviews. I just think Lucas has to be right, but more importantly, he has to be RIGHT, RIGHT NOW!
If Digital Origination is so hot, then by logic, making a print directly to film from digital should look better than 35mm to digital back to film. But does it?
Do film prints made from a digital original (Attack of the Clones) to film look better than a film print that was made from a film original, edited digitally, than printed back to film?
And even if the answer is yes, then you have to ask is Film Origination to a Digital Destination, truly second fiddle to HD origination, Digital Projection?
-
Well, I think to be fair he is promoting more democratic filmmaking. He's worth, what, a bazillion dollars? He could shoot entirely in 70mm IMAX if he wanted to. I think his main point is that DV allows you not only to do what's possible on celluloid, but lots more, faster, and with less money.
[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]
Hey, how'd that get in here...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Daveduck:
Well, I think to be fair he is promoting more democratic filmmaking. He's worth, what, a bazillion dollars? He could shoot entirely in 70mm IMAX if he wanted to. I think his main point is that DV allows you not only to do what's possible on celluloid, but lots more, faster, and with less money.
[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]
Hey, how'd that get in here...</font></font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
The previous two posts were posted at the same moment in time...so my previous answer did not address the above quote.
If you think about it...eventually, story telling will have more storytellers than storywatchers! We will be a planet in search of an audience for a billion storymakers.
What's the hurry? [img]confused.gif[/img]
-
Rumor has it the minatures and the explosions were done in film. [img]cool.gif[/img]
-
Yeah, the film-fanatics just can't believe that not a celluloid frame was shot. There's a mildly funny moment in one of the DVD interviews in which on of the specials effects guys said he got some calls from "people who knew people" insisting that certain elements were actually done on film. Hilarious.
In one of the interviews at the Sony site I mentioned above, Lucas is also quoted as saying that their insurance company insisted that the team take along a 35mm package, just in case something "went wrong." It never left the truck.
As for as many storytellers as there are audience members--why not? They will still either be good stories or boring stories, no matter the medium. The audience will watch or not. Everyone pretty much has the ability to write a novel--and there are a ton published every year. But how many are worth reading, much less become big sellers? Quality generally succeeds, dreck generally doesn't, with obvious exceptions (on the dreck side, usually).
[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
-
I doubt Lucas was there when the minature stuff was actually filmed, er, digitized. The special effects guys that you quote, I assume they were the minature effects guys?
Well, I'll have to go see this movie myself. I just hate giving the dark side my money to help them try and overthrow film.
Maybe I'll sneak in to watch it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for every person on the planet making a movie, perhaps we will have to genetically create a new life form, we'll call them "watchers". All the "humans" can make films, er videos, and the "watchers" can watch them!
Maybe space travel will allow us to transport other alien life-forms to watch our movies here. Kind of the way Las Vegas "lures/buses" in gamblers with free transportation and money to get them started.
Uh-Oh, maybe we are already being watched in other galaxies on planets with civilizations more advanced than our own. [img]cool.gif[/img]
-
I think it was the head of all effects at the Ranch. (And from what you hear, Lucas micro-manages all of this stuff anyway.)
It's interesting that the effects would be among shots people might think had to originate on film, since over the last few years "digital" and "effects" have enjoyed a pretty robust common law marriage. Hard to speak of one without the other. I would have said that grand vistas would be the most likely candidate for film resolution, but in this case they were probably all digital from conception.
I haven't seen the flick yet, either, by the way, and don't plan to if it means paying for it. It may show up on a long-haul flight next year. This has nothing to do with digital-vs-film, but with the terrifically bad reviews.
Incidentally (can't remember if I mentioned this one), "The Anniversary Party" was shot on a Sony DSR-500, in native 16x9 DVCAM (PAL), and I was shocked at how good it looked, at least on DVD. There are several seemingly ambient light shots that looked great--sun coming in through windows, etc., that most of the time were identical to film. Where you can detect the video is in some of the highlights, which burn out at the very top end. Up til now, though, I'd say that was the best filmlook video I've seen in release, and it wasn't even 24p.
Cheers.
-
Episode two is hardly your typical movie. Nothing has been proven about the viability of HDCAM movie making. It's still cheaper to shoot on S8 or 16 than HD, and S16 easily surpasses HD quality. If you don't have the digital post facilities to fix HD deficiencies or the extra time to light and hide HD's limitations or the need to composite hundreds of thousands of frames of digital animation, film is the best way to go.
Anyway episode two just looked fake, never mind the paucity of filmmaking technique. It looked like an amazing video game. But real models exploding, photographed on large gauge film looks f**king amazing if done well. Yoda looks better as a muppet. Even so, the format wouldn't matter at all if it met anywhere close to episode five's standards or even six for that matter. The whole progresivness of the digital thing is supposed to distract the film going public from the mediocrity of this movie. But Lucas still will be credited as the first HD Filmmaker and to him that is more important than being a great filmmaker. He is more the technician than the artist. Just my educated opinion.
-
If only "HD" and "low-budget" really fit together, I'd jump for it in a second.
Have to settle for DVCAM for awhile longer though.... [img]frown.gif[/img]
-
Here's my take on HD for cinema, it's neat and all the new thing, but until somebody can show me something that is BETTER than 35mm film, which in my opinion and by technical stats HD is not, then stop ramming it down my throat. I saw "Attack of the Clowns, oops, Clones" and it was not as sharp as a something shot on 35mm. (I wish Lucas would let somebody else write the scripts.)
HD is a great way for indie, low budget filmmakers to get experience, but I think 35mm is a better way to go.
Scott
