Film Origination, Digital Destination...Just how does Attack of the Clones...

**Alex** · June 13th, 2002, 04:57 AM

compare to film origination?

Since the "film" was shot completely in digital, and the final digital version was then printed onto first generation film for theatre projection, how does it look?

Do the characters look like film characters, do they have a different vibe to them?

You could also say, Digital Origination, Film Destination.

I think the hybrid aspect is the key, the order of which came first, in time, may be irrelevant.

**Mike Buckles** · June 13th, 2002, 07:05 AM

I saw the movie Sunday, and feel it didn't look as good as a movie originated on film...the entire film has a fuzzy look to it. I think there is some generation loss in the transfer from video to film. But, i also feel that they intentionally diffused every scene to hide the fact that it was shot on video. There were some scenes in the show that looked identical to film, then there were others where you could tell it was done on video. Since I just recently got back into Super 8, i was upset over this technology, but then realized that Kodak won't stop making Super 8 anytime soon, just because a handful of rich movie studios can produce shows on video...long live film!

**Mr Blackstock** · June 14th, 2002, 12:26 AM

Although i have not seen the film, i have seen others shot on video, the qaulity is missing.

I imagine that it comes as no surprise to industry "people" that price once again wins over quality.
Ever since stars could demand higher salaries, scripts have deteriorated, actors have a harder time finding work, computerised special effects have cheapened the sets, as well as all the other money saving methods,
now digitisation will further degrade the "cinema" to an extended advertisment for the actors resume!

Hopefully, digital cinema will slowely fade as audiences will watch "film" films, not fuzzy 3 hour adverts......
sorry to rant!

**Alex** · June 14th, 2002, 01:56 PM

I judge a new video technology by how the wide shots look.

A wide shot with high contrast is where film reigns supreme.

Factor in a Wide shot with high contrast shot in video, then projected on video, and you have multipled the inefficiencies by a huge factor.

**cameraguy** · June 14th, 2002, 02:12 PM

<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">Originally posted by Alex:
I judge a new video technology by how the wide shots look.

A wide shot with high contrast is where film reigns supreme.

Factor in a Wide shot with high contrast shot in video, then projected on video, and you have multipled the inefficiencies by a huge factor.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the bast way to tell apart Super 8 from 16mm. Super 8 can look comaprable on close ups but the scenic wide shoots crumble next to 16mm.

**Alex** · June 14th, 2002, 02:26 PM

This is true, however one workaround is if your actor is up relatively close to the camera, (not nostril close, but close) suddenly the picture looks real good.

**daveduck** · June 14th, 2002, 07:49 PM

Here's a link to an interview with Lucas in which he talks about his use of DV on Clones:

http://www.sonyusacinealta.com/artic...,30272,00.html

If you go to the main page of this site, which is promoting the camera and system that Lucas used for most of the shoot, you'll find an offer at the top of the page for a free DVD that demonstrates HDCAM vs 35mm, plus a much more interesting video interview with Lucas and other ILM people. Anyone into film or video will really like this DVD. It's amazing stuff.

Cheers,

Dave

**Alex** · June 14th, 2002, 09:33 PM

Does it spoil viewing the DVD at a later date if you were willing to offer observations about the DVD?

**daveduck** · June 15th, 2002, 01:57 AM

The DVD is packed with various examples of the 24p camera's results--from a Bud commercial (and many others) to feature film uses. There are interviews of varying lengths with Lucas and his guys, and James Cameron. Then there's a several-shot-sequence of 24p video and 35mm comparisons shot side-by-side to eliminate as many variables as possible.

Lucas says (as he has elsewhere) that he can't imagine ever shooting a frame of film again, and then explains why (basically, you can't tell the difference--or, 9,999 audience members out of 10,000 can't).

I tried copying the Lucas interview to create a RealMedia file for you guys, but, to thwart naughty people like me, the DVD is copy protected and the DV deck sensed it. I don't have the time to shoot the screen, which is probably for the best legally, although Sony can hardly object to even wider promotion of their cameras...

There are also a bunch of FAQs and tech papers on a separate CD that's included. And it's free, of course, which sold me right there on filling out zee leetle form.

--Dave